Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> New York Public Personnel Law

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

NYC?s Administrative Code requires court to apply ?more stringent requirements? in adjudicating civil rights law allegations

NYC?s Administrative Code requires court to apply ?more stringent requirements? in adjudicating civil rights law allegations
Williams v New York City Hous. Auth., 2009 NY Slip Op 00440, Decided on January 27, 2009, Appellate Division, First Department

State Supreme Court dismissed Gina Williams? complaint alleging a hostile work environment, disparate treatment on the basis of sex, and retaliation in violation of applicable provisions of the Executive Law and the New York City Administrative Code its entirety. This, said the Appellate Division, provided it with ?the opportunity to construe for the first time the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 (Local Law No. 85 of City of New York [2005]).?

While agreeing with the Supreme Court's analysis with respect to Williams' claims under the Executive Law, the Appellate Division said that the City?s Restoration Act mandates that courts be sensitive to the distinctive language, purposes, and method of analysis required by the City?s Human Rights Law, which required an analysis more stringent than that called for under either Title VII or the State?s Human Rights Law.

This, said the court, ?now explicitly requires an independent liberal construction analysis in all circumstances, even where State and federal civil rights laws have comparable language.?

The Restoration Act amended the City?s HRL in a variety of respects but in the view of the Appellate Division ?the core of the measure was its revision of Administrative Code § 8-130? was its ?construction provision (Local Law 85, § 7) which instructed that ?The provisions of this title shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal or New York State civil and human rights laws, including those laws with provisions comparably-worded to provisions of this title, have been so construed.?

In other words, the Restoration Act notified courts that (a) they had to be aware that some provisions of the City?s Human Rights Law were textually distinct from its State and federal counterparts, (b) all provisions of the City HRL required independent construction to accomplish the law's uniquely broad purposes and (c) cases that had failed to respect these differences were being legislatively overruled.

Applying these standards to Williams? complaint, the Appellate Division, in a comprehensive evaluation of the various allegations made by Williams, concluded that Supreme Court?s ruling dismissing her petition satisfied the Restoration Act?s ?more stringent? requirements.

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_00440.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on January 30, 2009 (boomark / email).