December 21 2007 Plaintiffs Prevail in Motion To Dismiss Summary We Stand With Silence Breakers

PLAINTIFFS PREVAIL IN MOTION TO DISMISS SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

DECEMBER 21, 2007

Schwartz Perry & Heller LLP is pleased to report that our firm successfully defended against a motion to dismiss, a motion for summary judgment and a motion to compel arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, all which were made by a defendant in an action in which our clients asserted claims for gender discrimination and retaliation. The action was brought in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. Hon. Deborah A. Batts wrote the Memorandum and Order, dated Dec. 21, 2007. It is a decision that we believe might well be of interest to our colleagues.

The Court, in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, citing Farrugia v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 13 Misc.3d 740, 747 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2006), observed that New York State Courts have recognized that the New York City Human Rights Law was intended to be more protective than the state and federal counterparts. The court also observed, citing Jordan v. Bates Advertising, Inc., 11 Misc.3d 764, 770 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 2006), that "in enacting the more protective Human Rights Law , the New York City Council has exercised a clear policy choice" which the court was bound to honor. The Court also opined, citing Jordan, that the legislative history of New York City's Administrative Code "clearly contemplates that the New York City Human Rights Law be liberally and independently construed with the aim of making it the most progressive in the nation."

The defendant also moved to compel arbitration based on a provision in one of the plaintiffs' collective bargaining agreement which stated that any claims under federal and state anti-discrimination statutes "shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure...as the sole and exclusive remedy for the violations." In denying the defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, the court found that "there is no basis for the Court to conclude that Selmanovic personally ever waived her right to raise her New York City Human Rights Law claims in a federal forum." The court cited the Second Circuit cases of Pyette v. Pennsylvania Building Corp., 498 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir. 2007) and Kravar v. Triangle Services, Inc., 509 F.Supp.2d 407, 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), which held that a union-negotiated mandatory arbitration agreement purporting to waive a covered worker's right to a federal forum with respect to statutory rights is unenforceable.

The decision can be read by clicking here.

Committed to Protecting Your Rights

What Else Sets Us Apart?
  • 100+ Years of Collective Experience
  • Personalized & Compassionate Service
  • Award-Winning Legal Counsel
  • A Track Record of Success
    Always available, conscientious and extremely knowledgeable.

    “Outstanding lawyer. Always available, conscientious and extremely knowledgeable. Excellent at following-up both with his clients and with opposing counsel. Regardless of the size of the case, Brian ...”

    - N.W.
    I trusted them entirely.

    “I received the most compassionate and professional assistance from SP&H. I felt that Mr. Heller truly cared about me and the situation I was in. He was able to be my voice during a difficult time. He ...”

    - A.M.
    Their integrity, personal attention, and knowledge are superior.

    “Schwartz, Perry & Heller, LLP are the most skilled Lawyers for your discrimination case in the Tri-State area. Their integrity, personal attention, and knowledge are superior. They won my case and can ...”

    - D.K.
    Caring, smart, highly skilled negotiators

    “Davida Perry and Brian Heller are very caring, attentive and highly skilled negotiators who gave me expert representation to win my negotiation and achieve my goals.”

    - D.
    He was nothing but professional and incredibly responsive. I can't recommend him enough.

    “Brian was extremely helpful and responsive it helping me review my first ever separation agreement. He was able to explain the legalese in a way that allowed me to understand the risks I could be ...”

    - Former Client
/

free Consultation

Get the Strong Advocacy You Deserve
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.