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

Labor & Employment Law

: New York Public Personnel Law

Queens College of the City University of New York not subject to the City?s Human Right because it is a State entity

Queens College of the City University of New York not subject to the City?s Human Right Law because it is a State entity
Jattan v Queens Coll. of City Univ. of N.Y., 2009 NY Slip Op 05746, decided on July 7, 2009, Appellate Division, Second Department

Lincoln Jattan, sued Queens College of the City University of New York to recover damages for employment discrimination in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law [Executive Law § 297[9] and the federal Civil Rights Law [42 USC §1983 ]. Jattan alleged he was subjected to religious discrimination and retaliation for bringing a lawsuit.

In a prior appeal, Jattan v Queens Coll. of City Univ. of N.Y., 307 AD2d 335, the Appellate Division dismissed Jattan?s claims under 42 USC §1983 with respect to Queens College because it was "a senior college and an instrumentality of the State of New York"* and therefore was not a "person" amenable to suit within the meaning of 42 USC §1983. Only Jattan?s claim with respect to the New York State Human Rights Law survived.

In the course of this litigation, Jattan asked Supreme Court for permission to amend the amended his complaint to add a cause of action pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law, and for an award of an attorney's fee in the sum of $135,465, and expenses in the sum of $2,284.77, pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-502(f).

The Appellate Division vacated the lower court?s action, denying the amended complaint to add a cause of action pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law and remitted the case to the Supreme Court for a new determination of the amount of prejudgment interest to be awarded.
After a jury trial, the jury found Queens College liable for back pay in the sum of $325,000 from March 1996 until July 2005, which decision is not an issue on this appeal.

The Appellate Division, however, said Supreme Court?s granting Jattan leave to amend his complaint to assert a cause of action pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law and granted him attorney's fee and expenses pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law, was incorrect.

The court explained that although the ?State Legislature waived sovereign immunity when it passed the New York State Human Rights Law and made its provisions applicable to the State,? the City of New York does not have the power to waive the State's sovereign immunity by passing an anti-discrimination code provision applicable to instrumentalities of the State.

Accordingly, because it is now an instrumentality of the State, Queens College is not subject to the provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law. Thus Jattan was not entitled to an award of an attorney's fee and expenses pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York §8-502(f).

The decision notes that interest from the date Jattan?s employment was unlawfully terminated until the date of the verdict was payable as ?the law is that courts may award prejudgment interest on awards of back pay in a case brought under the New York State Human Rights Law ? from the date that the plaintiff would have received the money.? However, as back pay accrues in installments. As Jattan would have received his paychecks if his employment had not been unlawfully terminated, ... "[w]here such damages were incurred at various times, interest shall be computed upon each item from the date it was incurred or upon all of the damages from a single reasonable intermediate date" [CPLR 5001(b)].

* Queens College was formerly a unit within the City University of the City of New York. The City University became, and is currently, an integral entity within the State University of New York.

The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_05746.htm

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on July 10, 2009 (boomark / email).