Collins v. The State of New York et al
Filing
172
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER denying # 162 Defendants' Motion to Alter Judgment and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Signed by Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 6/29/12. (lmw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________
PENNY T. COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
5:07-CV-0493
(GTS/DEP)
NEW YORK STATE DEP’T OF CORR. AND
CMTY. SERVS.; JOHN BURGE; HAROLD
GRAHAM; and TROY MITCHELL,
Defendants.
________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
LAW OFFICES OF MAIREAD E. CONNOR, PLLC
Counsel for Plaintiff
440 South Warren Street, Suite 703
Syracuse, NY 13202
MAIREAD E. CONNOR, ESQ.
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Defendants NYS DOCCS,
Burge and Graham
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341
CATHY Y. SHEEHAN, ESQ.
ROGER W. KINSEY, ESQ.
SATTER & ANDREWS, LLP
Counsel for Defendant Mitchell
217 South Salina Street, 6th Floor
Syracuse, NY 13202
ROSS P. ANDREWS, ESQ.
GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this employment discrimination action filed by Penny T.
Collins (“Plaintiff”) against the above-captioned entity and three correctional employees
(“Defendants”), is a motion by Defendant New York State Department of Corrections and
Community Services (“DOCCS”) to dismiss Plaintiff’s New York Human Rights Law (“HRL”)
claim against it pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and to alter or amend the judgment (so as to
decrease the jury’s award of compensatory damages to $300,000) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e). (Dkt. No. 162.) For the reasons set forth below, DOCCS’ motion is denied.
I.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
A.
Relevant Procedural History
On August 28, 2009, DOCCS and its co-Defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment on all of Plaintiff’s claims against them, including Plaintiff’s HRL claim. (Dkt. No.
65.) In pertinent part, Defendants argued that Plaintiff’s HRL claim was barred by the Eleventh
Amendment because Defendants had not consented to be sued and that the claim was barred by
the election of remedies provision of New York Executive Law § 297(9). (Dkt. No. 69 [Defs.’
Memo. of Law].) On August 30, 2011, Senior United States District Judge Neal P. McCurn
denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety. (Dkt. No. 86.)
On March 20, 2012, the undersigned submitted to the jury Plaintiff’s hostile work
environment claim against DOCCS under both HRL and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. The next day, the jury returned a verdict on that
claim against DOCCS and awarded $500,000 in compensatory damages and $150,000 in back
pay to Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 148.) While Title VII limited the amount of compensatory damages
that Plaintiff could recover to $300,000, HRL did not include any such limitation. Compare 42
U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D) with N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(9).
2
B.
Parties’ Arguments on DOCCS’ Motion
In its current motion, DOCCS argues that the Court erred as a matter of law when it
submitted Plaintiff’s HRL claim to the jury, because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
to hear that claim under the Eleventh Amendment. (See generally Dkt. No. 162, Attach. 1
[DOCCS’ Memo. of Law].) As a result, DOCCS seeks an Order dismissing the HRL claim
against it and setting aside that portion of the jury’s award to Plaintiff that exceeds the $300,000
maximum amount of compensatory damages available on the remaining claim, which arises
under Title VII. (Id.)
In response, Plaintiff argues, inter alia, that, because Defendants’ previous attempt to
dismiss Plaintiff’s HRL claim based on the Eleventh Amendment was rejected by Judge McCurn
when he decided Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s current attempt to do so
is barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine. (See generally Dkt. No. 165, Attach. 1 [Plf.’s Opp’n
Memo. of Law].)
In reply, DOCCS argues, inter alia, that (1) regardless of how Judge McCurn ruled, New
York State could not lose its Eleventh Amendment immunity unless Congress unequivocally
abrogated New York State’s immunity or New York State expressly consented to suit (neither of
which occurred under the circumstances), and (2) the issue is able to be decided anew by the
undersigned because DOCCS raised the issue in its pretrial brief, and again under Fed. R. Civ. P.
50(a) at the close of proof, whereupon the undersigned reserved decision. (Dkt. No. 167.)
II.
GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b), a district court may enter judgment as a matter of law
against a party on an issue where there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable
3
jury to find for that party on that issue, and where the proper pre-verdict motion has been made
and renewed. See Cobb v. Pozzi, 363 F.3d 89, 101 (2d Cir. 2004). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e), a district court may alter or amend a judgment where, among other things, it becomes
necessary to remedy a clear error of law or to prevent obvious injustice. See Weiss v. City of
New York, 96-CV-8281, 2003 WL 21414309, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2003) (citing Virgin
Atlantic Airways v. Nat’s Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 [2d Cir. 1992]).
III.
ANALYSIS
After carefully considering the matter, the Court denies DOCCS’ motion for the reasons
stated by Plaintiff in her opposition memorandum of law. (Dkt. No. 165, Attach. 1 [Plf.’s Opp’n
Memo. of Law].) The Court would add only the following analysis.
Section 297(9) of the New York Executive Law, which serves as a limited waiver of New
York State’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, states in relevant part as
follows:
[a]ny person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful
discriminatory practice shall have a cause of action in any court of
appropriate jurisdiction ... unless such person had filed a complaint
hereunder or with any local commission on human rights ...
provided that, where the division has dismissed such complaint on
the grounds of administrative convenience, on the grounds of
untimeliness, or on the grounds that the election of remedies is
annulled, such person shall maintain all rights to bring suit as if no
complaint had been filed with the division.
N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(9) (emphasis added). Therefore, where a complaint to the State Division
of Human Rights is dismissed for administrative convenience, there is no jurisdictional bar to an
action in federal court based on the same aggrieved unlawful discriminatory practice. See
Moodie v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 58 F.3d 879, 883-884 (2d Cir. 1995).
4
Previously in this action, when deciding Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,
Judge McCurn, noting that Plaintiff averred that she made a request to the Division of Human
Rights to dismiss her complaint for administrative convenience, concluded that Plaintiff’s
Complaint in this action fell within one of the exceptions to Section 297(9) and is therefore not
barred. (Dkt. No. 86, at 19-20.)
Judge McCurn’s ruling was firmly supported by the undisputed record evidence
presented by the parties on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. For example, in support
of her opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff stated by affidavit that
she filed a complaint with the Division of Human Rights on May 24, 2006. (Dkt. No. 77,
Attach. 13, at ¶ 25 [Aff. of Penny T. Collins, dated Nov. 23, 2009].) Moreover, according to
Defendants’ statement of material facts, this complaint was dismissed for administrative
convenience on March 30, 2007. (Dkt. No. 69, at ¶ 32 [Defs.’ Statement of Material Facts].)
Finally, in her response, Plaintiff admitted this fact. (Dkt. No. 77.)
DOCCS, in its current motion, has presented no evidence to contradict the undisputed
record evidence previously submitted by the parties. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 162, 167.)
Because it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s complaint to the Division of Human Rights was
dismissed for administrative convenience, in accordance with Section 297(9), Plaintiff “shall
maintain all rights to bring suit as if no complaint had been filed with the division.” N.Y. Exec.
Law § 297(9). As a result, the Court finds that it has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s HRL claim
against DOCCS, it committed no legal error by submitting that claim to the jury, and no grounds
exist to disturb the jury’s compensatory damage award of $500,000 to Plaintiff.
5
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Defendant DOCCS’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s HRL claim against it
pursuant to pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) (Dkt. No. 162) is DENIED in its entirety.
Dated: June 29, 2012
Syracuse, New York
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?