employment discrimination claim in New York

2022An employment discrimination claim "accrues on the date that an adverse employment determination is made and communicated to the plaintiff" ( Cordone v Wilens & Baker, P.C. , 286 AD2d 597, 598 [1st Dept 2001]).

2022An employment discrimination claim "accrues on the date that an adverse employment determination is made and communicated to the plaintiff" ( Cordone v Wilens & Baker, P.C. , 286 AD2d 597, 598 [1st Dept 2001]).

2023In considering the text of Town Law § 67, Departments of the Appellate Division have concluded that "[s]uch language is broad enough to include an employment discrimination claim based on Executive Law § 296" ( Picciano , 290 AD2d at 170 ; see Scopelliti v Town of New Castle , 210 AD2d 308, 309 [2d Dept 1994]; see also Thygesen v North Bailey Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. , 106 AD3d 1458, 1460 [4th Dept 2013]).

2001We agree with the Supreme Court that compliance with the notice of claim requirements set forth in Town Law § 67 and General Municipal Law § 50-e is a condition precedent to the pursuit of an employment discrimination claim against a town, regardless of whether the claimant files a complaint with DHR pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (1) or commences an action in a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (9) (see, Mills v County of Monroe, 59 NY2d 307 , cert denied 464 US 1018 ; Board of Educ. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 44 NY2d 902 ; Scopelliti v Town of New C

2025This language is broad enough to include an employment discrimination claim based on State HRL ( see Arnold , 222 AD3d at 1375 ; Picciano , 290 AD2d at 170 ).

2025This language is broad enough to include an employment discrimination claim based on State HRL ( see Arnold , 222 AD3d at 1375; Picciano , 290 AD2d at 170).

2020The violation of these contractual and statutory rights by the same factual occurrence does not vitiate their separate nature'" ( Caban v New York Methodist Hosp. , 119 AD3d 717, 718 , quoting Uryevick v Pepcom Indus. , 155 AD2d 450, 451 ).

2014The violation of these contractual and statutory rights by the same factual occurrence does not vitiate their separate nature” (Uryevick v Pepcom Indus., 155 AD2d 450, 451 [1989] [citation omitted]; see Alexander v Gardner-Denver Co., 415 US 36, 56-58 [1974]; DiLauria v Town of Harrison, 32 AD3d 490, 491-492 [2006]).

2015We have held that an employment discrimination claim brought against a county under the Human Rights Law is subject to County Law § 52 (l)’s notice-of-claim requirement (Mills v County of Monroe, 89 AD2d 776 [4th Dept 1982], affd 59 NY2d 307, 309 [1983], cert denied 464 US 1018 [1983], overruled in part on other grounds by Felder v Casey, 487 US 131 [1988]; see also Matter of Freudenthal v County of Nassau, 99 NY2d 285, 292-293 [2003]).

2015We have held that an employment discrimination claim brought against a county under the Human Rights Law is subject to County Law § 52 (1)'s notice-of-claim requirement (Mills v County of Monroe, 89 AD2d 776 [4th Dept 1982], affd 59 NY2d 307, 309 [1982], cert denied 464 US 1018 [1983], overruled in part on other grounds by Felder v Casey, 487 US 131 [1988]; see also Matter of Freudenthal v County of Nassau, 99 NY2d 285, 292-293 [2003]).

2014The violation of these contractual and statutory rights by the same factual occurrence does not vitiate their separate nature” (Uryevick v Pepcom Indus., 155 AD2d 450, 451 [1989] [citation omitted]; see Alexander v Gardner-Denver Co., 415 US 36, 56-58 [1974]; DiLauria v Town of Harrison, 32 AD3d 490, 491-492 [2006]).

1989Branch, 466 US 284 ; Alexander v Gardner-Denver Co., 415 US 36 ; Board of Educ. v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 106 AD2d 364 ; see generally, Matter of W & G Ltd. v Workers’ Compensation Bd., 131 Misc 2d 329 ).

2025This language is broad enough to include an employment discrimination claim based on State HRL ( see Arnold , 222 AD3d at 1375 ; Picciano , 290 AD2d at 170 ).

2025This language is broad enough to include an employment discrimination claim based on State HRL ( see Arnold , 222 AD3d at 1375; Picciano , 290 AD2d at 170).

2025Corp. , 22 NY3d at 837 ; Cohen v State of New York , 129 AD3d 897, 899 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2023In considering the text of Town Law § 67, Departments of the Appellate Division have concluded that "[s]uch language is broad enough to include an employment discrimination claim based on Executive Law § 296" ( Picciano , 290 AD2d at 170 ; see Scopelliti v Town of New Castle , 210 AD2d 308, 309 [2d Dept 1994]; see also Thygesen v North Bailey Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. , 106 AD3d 1458, 1460 [4th Dept 2013]).

2016While it is true that in Xu we rejected the pro se plaintiff’s argument that a retaliatory firing suit is parallel to an employment discrimination claim under Executive Law § 296, in so ruling we cited Rigle v County of Onondaga ( 267 AD2d 1088, 1088-1089 [4th Dept [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 764 [2000]) and Roens v New York City Tr.

2015We have held that an employment discrimination claim brought against a county under the Human Rights Law is subject to County Law § 52 (l)’s notice-of-claim requirement (Mills v County of Monroe, 89 AD2d 776 [4th Dept 1982], affd 59 NY2d 307, 309 [1983], cert denied 464 US 1018 [1983], overruled in part on other grounds by Felder v Casey, 487 US 131 [1988]; see also Matter of Freudenthal v County of Nassau, 99 NY2d 285, 292-293 [2003]).

2015We have held that an employment discrimination claim brought against a county under the Human Rights Law is subject to County Law § 52 (1)'s notice-of-claim requirement (Mills v County of Monroe, 89 AD2d 776 [4th Dept 1982], affd 59 NY2d 307, 309 [1982], cert denied 464 US 1018 [1983], overruled in part on other grounds by Felder v Casey, 487 US 131 [1988]; see also Matter of Freudenthal v County of Nassau, 99 NY2d 285, 292-293 [2003]).

2014The violation of these contractual and statutory rights by the same factual occurrence does not vitiate their separate nature” (Uryevick v Pepcom Indus., 155 AD2d 450, 451 [1989] [citation omitted]; see Alexander v Gardner-Denver Co., 415 US 36, 56-58 [1974]; DiLauria v Town of Harrison, 32 AD3d 490, 491-492 [2006]).

2013And, the liberal standard for asserting an employment discrimination claim adopted by the First Department in Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P. ( 67 AD3d 140, 145 [1st Dept 2009]) should not be followed because in that decision, the First Department relied on the United States Supreme Court’s cases that have been since impliedly overruled by the federal courts (mostly in other circuits).

2011The Second Circuit did not reach the issue in Mullen v Rieckhoff ( 189 F3d 461 [1999] [table; text at 1999 WL 568040 , *1, 1999 US App LEXIS 18150, **2 (Ct App 1999)]), but noted in its decision “a split of authority over whether an employment discrimination plaintiff may avoid the ADA’s requirement of an EEOC charge by filing under Title II of that Act.” For example, the Eleventh Circuit in Bledsoe v Palm Beach County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. ( 133 F3d 816, 820 [1998]) held that “Title II of the ADA does encompass [public] employment discrimination,” while the Ninth Circuit held in Zim

2011The Second Circuit did not reach the issue in Mullen v Rieckhoff ( 189 F3d 461 [1999] [table; text at 1999 WL 568040 , *1, 1999 US App LEXIS 18150, **2 (Ct App 1999)]), but noted in its decision “a split of authority over whether an employment discrimination plaintiff may avoid the ADA’s requirement of an EEOC charge by filing under Title II of that Act.” For example, the Eleventh Circuit in Bledsoe v Palm Beach County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. ( 133 F3d 816, 820 [1998]) held that “Title II of the ADA does encompass [public] employment discrimination,” while the Ninth Circuit held in Zim

2009The record establishes that the statement of claim which initiated the arbitration proceeding gave no notice of the transactions or occurrences underlying the employment discrimination claim (see Pendleton v City of New York, 44 AD3d 733, 736 [2007]).

2009Their expert affidavit was insufficient to show that Vinar’s alleged negligence in failing to seek leave to amend the arbitration claim to add the employment discrimination claim was a proximate cause of the failure to have the employment discrimination claim heard by an appropriate tribunal, and that the plaintiff would have prevailed on it in any event (see Barnett v Schwartz, 47 AD3d 197, 203-204 [2007]; Bauza v Livington, 40 AD3d 791,793 [2007]; Leder v Spiegel, 31 AD3d 266 , 268 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 836 [2007], cert denied 552 US —, 128 S Ct 1696 [2008]).