Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW

Legal

  •  
  •  

Gavel REUTERS Cohen Magen

Court sets high bar for employers in discrimination case

12/21/2011 COMMENTS (0)

NEW YORK, Dec 21 (Reuters) - A unanimous state appeals court ruled Tuesday that employers seeking to defeat discrimination actions brought under New York City's human-rights law must explain and prove beyond dispute the non-discriminatory motives for their actions.

The First Department, Appellate Division, said that Kenneth Bennett's appeal of a trial court's dismissal of his suit against former employer Health Management Systems Inc. gave the court "the opportunity to address the evidentiary showing required at the summary judgment stage in a discrimination case brought pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law."

Bennett, a 47-year-old white man, sued Health Management Systems in 2008, alleging he was fired from his job in technical operations for age- and race-related reasons, including run-ins with his black team manager.

Health Management Systems moved for summary judgment, saying that Bennett's managers had received several reports from co-workers who said Bennett was "drinking and sleeping on the job."

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Diamond granted Health Management System's motion in March 2010.

In affirming Diamond's ruling, the appeals court laid out a three-prong test for determining whether employers should be granted the "extraordinary remedy" of summary judgment in cases brought against them by employees under the New York City Human Rights law.

First, the court must determine whether the facts of the case, as described by the plaintiff, point toward a possible showing of discrimination under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, which requires plaintiffs to make a prima facie case of discrimination because of race, sex, age or any other protected status.

Second, the court must decide whether the defendant has sufficiently met its burden, as the moving party, to show that no jury could find it liable for discrimination under any possible evidentiary scenario, according to the ruling.

Finally, if the plaintiff comes forward to rebut the evidence offered by the defendant as to its non-discriminatory motives in the challenged action, the court should defer to a jury to resolve the factual disputes, the ruling said.

'MAXIMUM DETERRENT EFFECT'

"It is difficult enough to discern a defendant's motive or motives in those circumstances without giving it a tactical advantage to throwing numerous non-discriminatory justifications against the wall and seeing which stick," Justice Rolando Acosta wrote for the majority. "It must thus be the defendant's obligation to articulate its true reasons for acting in the way that it did.

"And the maximum deterrent effect sought by the City Human Rights Law can only be achieved where entities understand that, whatever the urge may be to cover up their actual motivations before arriving in court, there can be no benefit for doing so once in court," Acosta wrote.

Applying that test to Bennett's case, the lower court was justified in ruling in favor of Health Management Systems, the appeals court found. Not only could the company prove it had legitimate concerns about Bennett's job performance--corroborated by coworkers' testimony that he was once found asleep under his cubicle desk while under the influence of alcohol--but it replaced him with someone older than he was, according to the ruling.

Barbara Hoey, an employment litigator at Littler Mendelson, said that, in its decision, the court was "most definitely signaling that lower courts should not be so quick to grant summary judgment dismissing City Human Rights Law claims."

"If there is doubt, that doubt should be resolved in favor for the plaintiff," Hoey said.

Attorneys for both parties did not immediately return requests for comment Wednesday.

The case is Bennett v. Health Management Systems Inc, in the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division: First Department, no. 115015/08.

For Bennett: Sheldon Karasik of Simon Eisenberg & Baum.

For Health Management Systems: Richard Steer and Tara Toevs of Tarter Krinsky & Drogin.

(Reporting by Jessica Dye)

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters