Case Law Sotomayor v. City of New York

Sotomayor v. City of New York

Document Cited Authorities (59) Cited in (344) Related

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Alan E. Wolin, Wolin & Wolin, Esqs., Jericho, NY, for plaintiff.

Cindy E. Switzer, City of New York Law Department, New York, NY, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM, ORDER, & JUDGMENT

JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge:

+------------------------------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦Introduction                                      ¦234  ¦
+---+--------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦   ¦                                                  ¦     ¦
+---+--------------------------------------------------+-----¦
¦II.¦Facts                                             ¦235  ¦
+------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦A.  ¦Parties                                              ¦235   ¦
+---+----+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦B.  ¦Sotomayor's Initial Employment with the DOE          ¦235   ¦
+---+----+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦C.  ¦Initial Tenure at the School of International Studies¦236   ¦
+---+----+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦D.  ¦2007–2008 School Year                                ¦237   ¦
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦SLT Meeting                                          ¦237   ¦
+----+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦SAVE Room Incident                                   ¦237   ¦
+----+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦3. ¦Classroom Observations                               ¦238   ¦
+----+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦4. ¦Tentative Class Assignments for 2008–2009 School Year¦238   ¦
+----+----+---+-----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦5. ¦First FMLA Leave                                     ¦238   ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦E.¦2008–2009 School Year           ¦239¦
+------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Change in Class Assignment           ¦239 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Classroom Observations               ¦239 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Concerns About Record Keeping        ¦241 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦4.¦Unsatisfactory Rating                ¦241 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦5.¦Second FMLA Leave                    ¦242 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦F.¦2009–2010 School Year           ¦242¦
+--+--+--------------------------------+---¦
¦  ¦G.¦2010–2011 School Year           ¦242¦
+------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Class Assignment                     ¦242 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Classroom Observations               ¦242 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Failure to Pay for Prep Period       ¦243 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦H.¦2011–2012 School Year           ¦244¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Initial Class Assignment                      ¦244   ¦
+---+---+--+----------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Plaintiff Initially Excessed                  ¦244   ¦
+---+---+--+----------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Plaintiff's Assignments for the 2011–2012 Year¦244   ¦
+---+---+--+----------------------------------------------+------¦
¦   ¦   ¦4.¦Loss of “Per Session” Position                ¦245   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦I.¦Current Employment              ¦245¦
+--+--+--------------------------------+---¦
¦  ¦J.¦Evidence of Animus              ¦245¦
+------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦School Composition                   ¦245 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Differential Treatment of Plaintiff  ¦245 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Discriminatory Comments              ¦245 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦4.¦Differential Treatment of Others     ¦246 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦  ¦                                     ¦    ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦III.¦Procedural History                                             ¦248    ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦IV. ¦Summary Judgment Standard                                      ¦248    ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦V.  ¦Claims Against City Are Dismissed                              ¦248    ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦    ¦                                                               ¦       ¦
+----+---------------------------------------------------------------+-------¦
¦VI. ¦Statute of Limitations for NYSHRL and NYCHRL Claims            ¦248    ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦A.  ¦One Year Statute of Limitations Applies to Claims Against  ¦248   ¦
¦    ¦    ¦the DOE                                                    ¦      ¦
+----+----+-----------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦B.  ¦Time Bar Only Applies to NYSHRL Claims Against DOE         ¦249   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦NYSHRL Discrimination Claims Against DOE Time Barred¦250   ¦
+----+----+---+----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦NYCHRL Claims Against DOE Timely                    ¦250   ¦
+----+----+---+----------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦3. ¦NYSHRL Harassment Claim Against DOE Timely          ¦251   ¦
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦     ¦                                                               ¦      ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦VII. ¦All Discrimination and Retaliation Claims Apply McDonnell      ¦251   ¦
¦     ¦Douglas Burden Shifting Framework                              ¦      ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦     ¦                                                               ¦      ¦
+-----+---------------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦VIII.¦Federal Discrimination Claims Meritless                        ¦252   ¦
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦A.¦Requirements of a Prima Facie Case¦253 ¦
+---------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦   ¦   ¦1.¦Protected Class                      ¦253 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦2.¦Adverse Employment Action            ¦253 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦3.¦Satisfactory Performance             ¦253 ¦
+---+---+--+-------------------------------------+----¦
¦   ¦   ¦4.¦Inference of Discrimination          ¦254 ¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------+
¦  ¦B.¦No Prima Facie Case             ¦254¦
+------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦    ¦    ¦1. ¦Classroom Observations and Unsatisfactory Evaluations  ¦254   ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦2. ¦Letters to File                                        ¦255   ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦3. ¦Teaching Preferences                                   ¦255   ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦4. ¦Teaching Load                                          ¦255   ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦5. ¦Room Assignment                                        ¦256   ¦
+----+----+---+-------------------------------------------------------+------¦
¦    ¦    ¦6.
...
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2021
Cherry v. New York City Housing Authority
"...was materially adverse in order to satisfy the third prong of the prima facie case under the NYCHRL. See Sotomayor v. City of New York , 862 F. Supp. 2d 226, 248 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Williams , 872 N.Y.S.2d at 34 ); Williams v. Regus Mgmt. Grp., LLC , 836 F. Supp. 2d 159, 173 (S.D.N.Y. 2..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2013
Weber v. City of N.Y.
"...and hostile work environment claims; rather, both are governed by N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–107(1)(a). Sotomayor v. City of New York, 862 F.Supp.2d 226, 261 (E.D.N.Y.2012) (“Hostile work environment claims are analyzed under the same provision of the NYCHRL as discrimination claims.”), aff'd,7..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2014
Bowen-Hooks v. City of N.Y.
"...statute of limitations is three years. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502(d); see also Sotomayor v. City of New York, 862 F. Supp. 2d 226, 248-49 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd, 713 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2013). The limitations period is tolled during the pendency of a complaint befo..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2012
Moccio v. Cornell Univ.
"...an independent and more liberal construction than its federal and state counterparts.” Sotomayor v. City of N.Y., No. 10–cv–3411, 862 F.Supp.2d 226, 257, 2012 WL 1889780, at *24 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2012) (citation omitted) (“The provisions of this [ ] title shall be construed liberally for t..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2016
Rogers v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon
"...Tse v. New York Univ., 10 Civ. 7207(DAB), 2013 WL 5288848 at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2013) (Batts, D.J.); Sotomayor v. City of New York, 862 F. Supp. 2d 226, 261 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd, 713 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). To state a hostile work environment claim under the NYCHRL, a p..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2021
Cherry v. New York City Housing Authority
"...was materially adverse in order to satisfy the third prong of the prima facie case under the NYCHRL. See Sotomayor v. City of New York , 862 F. Supp. 2d 226, 248 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Williams , 872 N.Y.S.2d at 34 ); Williams v. Regus Mgmt. Grp., LLC , 836 F. Supp. 2d 159, 173 (S.D.N.Y. 2..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2013
Weber v. City of N.Y.
"...and hostile work environment claims; rather, both are governed by N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–107(1)(a). Sotomayor v. City of New York, 862 F.Supp.2d 226, 261 (E.D.N.Y.2012) (“Hostile work environment claims are analyzed under the same provision of the NYCHRL as discrimination claims.”), aff'd,7..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York – 2014
Bowen-Hooks v. City of N.Y.
"...statute of limitations is three years. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2); N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502(d); see also Sotomayor v. City of New York, 862 F. Supp. 2d 226, 248-49 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd, 713 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2013). The limitations period is tolled during the pendency of a complaint befo..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2012
Moccio v. Cornell Univ.
"...an independent and more liberal construction than its federal and state counterparts.” Sotomayor v. City of N.Y., No. 10–cv–3411, 862 F.Supp.2d 226, 257, 2012 WL 1889780, at *24 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2012) (citation omitted) (“The provisions of this [ ] title shall be construed liberally for t..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York – 2016
Rogers v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon
"...Tse v. New York Univ., 10 Civ. 7207(DAB), 2013 WL 5288848 at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2013) (Batts, D.J.); Sotomayor v. City of New York, 862 F. Supp. 2d 226, 261 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd, 713 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam). To state a hostile work environment claim under the NYCHRL, a p..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex