NY Courts May Have to Redo Thousands of ForeclosureHearings Over Need for Appointed Counsel

By Brian Lee/ Law.com

Thousands of foreclosure proceedings could potentially be headed for do-overs as a result of the court system settling a class-action lawsuit in which it acknowledges skipping a key initial process that mandates an assessment of homeowners’ eligibility for appointed counsel.

The New York court system recently resolved the class action by agreeing to comply with the state law, which mandates that parties in residential foreclosure cases participate in an initial settlement conference to discuss a resolution toward homeowner retention.

The assessment is required when the homeowner appears at the conference without an attorney.

Prior to Monday’s settlement, state courts routinely failed to make the assessment, plaintiffs counsel from the New York Civil Liberties Union, practitioner Yolande Nicholson, Mehri & Skalet, and Valli Kane & Vagnini said jointly.

The settlement could result in a restarting of the clock on an untold number of foreclosure proceedings.

It stipulates homeowners in active foreclosure proceedings are entitled to a redo of the conference if the case arose on or after Dec. 1, 2022, and they were unrepresented at their initial settlement conferences but didn’t receive an assessment.

The courts would then determine whether the homeowner should be appointed a lawyer.

A spokesperson for NYCLU told the Law Journal that, based on the Office of Court Administration’s 2023 reporting on foreclosures, more than 9,000 homeowners were unrepresented at their initial settlement conferences between October 2022 and October 2023. That means thousands of homeowners would possibly be entitled to do-over conferences.

Read the full article from Law.com here.

Customer Service Reps Get Narrow Collective Cert. In OT Suit

By Abby Wargo/Law360

A Texas federal judge agreed Tuesday to certify a collective of customer service representatives alleging that a medical technologies corporation failed to pay them for off-the-clock work, finding they were all subject to the same policies while declining to toll the statute of limitations and extend the class period.

In an opinion and order, U.S. District Judge Jane J. Boyle granted Angelita Floyd’s motion to certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective of customer service representatives at Stryker Corp.’s Flower Mound, Texas, facility who did not receive time-and-a-half overtime premiums for hours worked over 40.

However, Judge Boyle would not toll the statute of limitations from Nov. 1, 2022, through April 3, 2023, ruling that there were no outstanding circumstances warranting equitable tolling and limiting the class period to Jan. 2, 2021, to the present. She ordered a 60-day notice period for Floyd to communicate with potential collective members.

Floyd showed that the customer service representatives were all subjected to the same productivity requirements, under the same supervisory umbrella and paid the same $20 hourly rate, regardless of whether they held a senior role or not, the judge found.

Stryker had argued that senior representatives and nonsenior representatives had different job duties and that more senior workers had additional responsibilities, but the judge said the workers do not have to prove they are identically situated and only need to show that they had some commonalities.

Floyd sued in May 2022, alleging that she and other customer service representatives worked off-the-clock without pay for Stryker. Since then, 10 opt-in plaintiffs have joined the lawsuit, records show.

Customer service representatives were all hourly paid and scheduled to work 40 hours a week, Monday through Friday, but Floyd said they often had to work after-hours to keep up with the volume of customer orders, as they were required to process after-hours orders before 10 a.m. the next day. If they failed to do so on time, Stryker would reprimand them and threaten to place them on a performance improvement plan, thus pressuring them into performing unpaid work, Floyd alleged.

A medical technologies corporation based in Kalamazoo, Michigan, Stryker opened its customer service department in Flower Mound in 2020, records show.

Robert J. Valli Jr. of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP, who is representing the workers, told Law360 the judge’s decision was well-reasoned and thorough. 

“We agree with the court’s decision to credit plaintiffs’ argument that the type of work performed is a more appropriate factor than an employee’s title, when deciding a FLSA motion for certification,” Valli said. 

Counsel for Stryker did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

The workers are represented by Alexander M. White and Robert J. Valli Jr. of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP.

Stryker is represented by Amanda E. Brown, Joseph J. Mammone Jr. and Paulo B. McKeeby of Reed Smith LLP.

The case is Floyd v. Stryker Corp., case number 3:22-cv-01131, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

–Editing by Abbie Sarfo.

Read the article from Law360 here.

Park co-naming expected for 2024

Lawsuit says Open Streets program for green space projects violates the ADA

By Naeisha Rose/Queens Chronicle

The grassroots effort to formalize the reclamation of public space for an Open Streets program on a stretch of 26 blocks in Jackson Heights is taking shape.

Last Wednesday, 46 members of the City Council approved the renaming of the corridor along 34th Avenue from 69th Street to Junction Boulevard to Paseo Park, a nod to the predominantly Hispanic neighborhood, as paseo means stroll or promenade in Spanish.

Five councilmembers were absent, on medical leave or abstained from voting.

Leading the charge for the co-naming, which is expected to take place spring 2024 if Mayor Adams signs the bill, is Councilman Shekar Krishnan (D-Jackson Heights), the prime sponsor of Intro. 1278.

“… Paseo Park is the incredible story of a community coming together during a crisis to create new open space, filling it with families, music, and joy,” Krishnan, chair of the Committee on Parks and Recreation, said in a statement. “Our entire community is grateful for the tireless work of the 34th Avenue Open Streets Coalition and Alliance for Paseo Park …”

The Alliance for Paseo Park and 34th Avenue Open Streets Coalition are two groups that were formed in spring 2020, the height of the spread of the Covid-19 virus. Both organizations wanted to address the lack of green space in Jackson Heights as the neighborhood ranks last in the city for per capita park space, while also being in the eighth-most densely populated ZIP Code, 11372, in the United States.

Paseo Park would create up to 7.5 acres of green space, quadrupling the park space available in Jackson Heights. Since the city’s pandemic Open Streets program there three year ago, crashes in the area decreased 42 percent, the space was improved with new surfacing and planters and approximately 7,000 children from seven public schools, a private school and three universal pre-K institutions are able to travel through the park, according to Krishnan’s office.

While Paseo Park is being touted as the “gold standard” for the city’s Open Streets program, some detractors of it, as well as of similar projects throughout the city, do not consider it a jewel in their eyes.

A complaint filed in the Eastern District of New York by 11 people — a 12th person dropped out of the lawsuit — claims that the Open Streets initiative, which takes away roadway for public parks and pedestrian plazas, is in violation of the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, along with city and state Human Rights laws.

Matthew Berman, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said his clients are not challenging the entire citywide program, but specific Open Streets projects.

“… although changes to these particular streets may result in broader changes,” Berman said.

Berman added that the ADA and the Rehabilitation acts require equal access to streets and sidewalks for the disabled, especially for programs using federal funds.

“The upshot is that the city is required to provide reasonable accommodations to the disabled so that they have equal access and the city has failed to do that,” he said.

Open Streets programs are expensive and resource–intensive, and despite grants from the city, they also rely on the availability of federal and state funding, according to neighborhoodcommons.nyc.

The Chronicle reached out to Krishnan’s office about the lawsuit, but he was not available for comment.

UPDATE: This story was updated to say that the attorney’s name is Matthew Berman.

Read the article from Queens Chronicle here.

5 Notable Workplace Bias Verdicts From 2023

By Anne Cullen/Law 360

Law360 (December 15, 2023, 6:32 PM EST) — A $36 million jury verdict that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission secured in September on behalf of a deaf truck driver marked one of many eight-digit damages awards that workers won in discrimination battles this past year.

Trials held all over the country yielded eye-popping wins for workers. Jurors in Nebraska handed down the EEOC’s trial victory in the trucking case, while a jury in Texas slapped Omni Hotels & Resorts with a $25 million damages bill in an equal pay suit in March.

Later that month, a Massachusetts jury awarded a Thermo Fisher Scientific subsidiary executive a $24 million win in her case alleging she was ousted because she suffered from anxiety.

Sarah N. Turner, a partner at Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP who advises employers, said the big jury awards are increasingly originating beyond states where they are typically expected.

“The large jury verdicts are no longer isolated to large politically liberal-leaning cities, i.e. New York, Los Angeles,” Turner said. “Large jury verdicts in excess of a million dollars are becoming more common in smaller cities, i.e. Portland, Oregon, and more conservative jurisdictions, i.e. Houston.”

While some of these awards will be cut down — due to statutory caps or employer appeals — McDermott Will & Emery LLP employment partner Jeremy White said these results emphasize the legwork that businesses facing a workplace bias claim must do before jurors are impaneled.

“These jury verdicts exemplify the uncertainty of going to trial,” said White, who is a management-side attorney. “They also show that employers need to win these cases in the trenches, during depositions, which will require additional investment at the discovery phase of litigation.”

Here’s a look at five major trial victories for workers in the past 12 months.

Jury Slaps Luxury Hotel Chain With $25.1M Damages

In March, after three days of trial, a Texas jury found that Dallas-based luxury hotel company Omni Hotels & Resorts violated both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act when it underpaid a food and beverage director because she’s a woman.

Sarah Lindsley, who worked for Omni for about 16 years, had risen from a part-time server to food and beverage director at the chain’s Corpus Christi location, according to case filings. However, she said that despite her hard work, she was consistently paid less than her male peers.

Lindsley also alleged the company ignored the multiple complaints she said she made about the inequity. A jury found Omni had violated federal laws by undercutting Lindsley’s pay, and awarded her $100,000 in emotional damages and $25 million in punitive damages.

A federal judge later knocked the total award down to $300,000 because of statutory damages caps, but experts said the reward is still notable because of how high the punitive damages were compared to the rest of the award.

Deborah S. Brenneman, a management-side employment partner at Thompson Hine LLP, said this demonstrates that the jury was angry at the company. And she said this could have originated from Lindsley’s allegation that Omni didn’t take any corrective action after she complained.

“The plaintiff was able to, at least from what we’ve been able to see, paint a picture that the employer didn’t take their concerns seriously, and juries punish the companies for that,” Brenneman said.

Speaking broadly about this and other verdicts from this year, she said a key takeaway is that management has to take action when it hears concerns, and make a record of the steps that followed.

“The plaintiffs were able to tell stories that the companies just weren’t listening, and it’s a big warning to employers,” Brenneman said. “It’s a big reminder that when somebody complains about an issue, companies need to show they’re taking the concerns seriously, and document why they did or did not make any change.”

The case is Lindsley v. TRT Holdings Inc. et al, case number 3:17-cv-02942, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Explore the remaining four noteworthy employment law verdicts of 2023 as covered by Law360 here.

Marilyn Manson’s Former Assistant Wins Appeal to Revive a Previously Dismissed Sexual Assault Lawsuit

Ashley Walters claims Manson sexually assaulted her, whipped her and threw her against a wall when she was his assistant in 2011.

By Daniela Avila/ PEOPLE

Marilyn Manson’s former assistant has won a critical appeal that will revive her previously dismissed lawsuit against the rocker.

On Wednesday, a tribunal with California’s Second Appellate District sided with Ashley Walters and reversed a lower court ruling — sending the case back to a judge for trial, according to documents obtained by PEOPLE.

In the court filings, Walters claims that Manson (whose real name is Brian Warner) forced her hand into his underwear, whipped her, pushed her into a wall, forced her to stay awake for 48 hours straight, offered her up sexually to friends and associates, once required her to stand on a chair for 12 hours and fed her cocaine to keep her awake among other accusations. She also claims he used threatening behavior, like blackmail, to ensure her silence.

“We believe this ruling makes clear that courts must factor in trauma induced repression into the legal reasoning why survivors often come forward years after their trauma to raise claims,” Walters’ lawyer, James Vagnini, says in a statement to PEOPLE. “This clears a path, much like many of the newly passed laws sweeping the country, allowing victims of sexual assault and harassment to raise their claims against their abusers when they are able to, not by a deadline set by statute.”

In 2021, Walters sued Manson, 54, with claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment and sex discrimination. At the time, she argued that though the alleged abuse took place during her year of employment in 2011, the two-year statute of limitations didn’t apply because she had suppressed her memories until 2020.

Read the full article from PEOPLE here.

Marilyn Manson’s Ex-Assistant Wins Appeal, Can Sue for ‘Horrific’ Sexual Harassment and Assault 

By Nancy Dillon/ Rolling Stone

“This is a great victory for all survivors as it provides a clear path for issues of repressed memories,” Ashley Walters’ lawyer says.

THE FORMER ASSISTANT who claims Marilyn Manson sexually assaulted her, whipped her and threw her against a wall during a drug-induced rage won a critical appeal ruling Wednesday that revives her previously dismissed lawsuit against the shock rocker.

Ashley Walters initially sued Manson, whose legal name is Brian Warner, with claims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sex discrimination in May 2021. She argued that while the alleged abuse took place during a “horrific” year of employment that ended in 2011, the typical two-year statute of limitations didn’t apply because she had suppressed her memories until 2020. She said the “delayed discovery” rule, which postpones the starting clock for statutes of limitations in cases where victims bury painful memories, had extended her window to file. She further alleged Warner used threatening behavior to ensure her silence.

A trial court judge considered her argument but ultimately tossed her case in May 2022, ruling she “failed to plead facts to invoke the delayed discovery rule.” Walters appealed, and a tribunal with California’s Second Appellate District sided with her Wednesday, reversing the lower court ruling and sending the case back to the judge for trial.

“Walters’s allegations of delayed discovery were sufficient to withstand demurrer, and we reverse,” the judges wrote in their ruling. They noted that while Warner’s defense team argued her allegations were “too memorable and happened too many times for her to have remembered none of it,” the court wasn’t supposed to concern itself with her ability to prove her claims at this stage of her case, only that she asserted them properly.

“This is a great victory for all survivors as it provides a clear path for issues of repressed memories and delayed discovery in these types of cases. I think the court is very firm in articulating a very clear decision as to why survivors have repressed memories and why that should be relevant when they come forward later in life to bring those claims,” Walters’s lawyer, James Vagnini, tells Rolling Stone. He noted that Warner’s camp also was ordered to pay the appellate costs as well. “We think that sends a message,” he says. Warner’s lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In court filings, Walters alleged Warner forced her hand into his underwear, whipped her, threw dishes at her, pushed her into a wall, broke down doors to get to her, charged at her and forced her to stay awake for 48 hours straight, one time requiring her to stand on a chair for 12 hours.

Warner, 54, has denied Walters’ allegations and similar claims of abuse from more than a dozen women. In September, he reached a private settlement with a Jane Doe accuser who alleged he brutally raped her in 2011. Doe further claimed Warner deprived her of food and sleep during their abusive dating relationship and that he threatened to “bash her head in” if she reported him. That deal followed after Warner reached a separate settlement with Game of Thrones star Esmé Bianco in January. Bianco had alleged Warner raped and battered her.

Former accuser Ashley Morgan Smithline let her lawsuit end in default in January and formally recanted her allegations against Warner. A second Jane Doe sued Warner in January for sexual assault.

Read the article from Rolling Stone here.

Q&A: Attorney Sara Wyn Kane on Tough Sexual Assault Cases and New York’s Lookback Window

By Sara Hammel/The Landing

As one of Delta Captain Andrea Ratfield’s attorneys, Sara Wyn Kane of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP is familiar with the specific and unique way airlines operate when it comes to sexual assault and harassment cases.

Her bio highlights her vast experience and professional accolades and explains, “Sara has devoted over twenty (20) years of her legal career fighting for her clients’ Civil Rights and against all varieties of employment discrimination (race, gender, age, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, and religion), sexual harassment/hostile work environment claims, wage and hour disputes and qui tams/whistleblower claims.”

A big thank you to Sara for giving her time to answer my questions and help victims of assault (all emphasis mine):

Q: I’ve seen a bunch of cases in the New York papers in the past year, including some high-profile lawsuits, taking advantage of the lookback window that ends very soon. (For example, a woman just filed a lawsuit against Bill Cosby alleging he drugged and raped her in the 1970s; she’s also suing the organizations her lawyer says “not only provided a platform for Mr. Cosby to showcase his fame and fortune to lure in women, but then put their own profits over the safety of their female guests by turning a blind eye to Mr. Cosby’s alleged sexual assaults on women”).

A: We have received many calls from individuals looking to assert their rights under the statute. We currently represent a woman against a well-known radio personality/author. She was allegedly assaulted many many years ago and had been prohibited from bringing her claims due to the statute of limitations. She is relieved to have an avenue by which to attempt to pursue them now. 

Q: What are some of the challenges in finding evidence and making a case for assaults that could be in the distant past, such as gathering old police reports and talking to witnesses? Should these potential roadblocks deter anyone from seeking legal advice about their assaults?

A: Certainly you have identified some of the potential obstacles to pursing older cases. Often, however, when someone has been the victim of an assault, they may have discussed it with a friend, family member, counselor and/or written in a journal—some type of contemporaneous confirmation of what transpired. Also, if someone does have the strength and courage to come forward many years later, it is likely that what took place is ingrained in their memories.

These cases are generally difficult regardless of whether they are brought soon thereafter or years later, but that does not mean it is not worth the effort. If nothing else, we strongly believe that the likelihood of success should NEVER deter anyone from seeking legal advice. Learning what your rights are is only a benefit, never detrimental. Being armed with knowledge is empowering—even if you choose not to act on it, we always encourage people to reach out and learn what options you may or may not have and to garner a better understanding of your legal rights.

Read the full Q&A from The Landing here.

‘I don’t want to be in the darkness anymore’: Bronx case worker sues DSS over alleged sexual abuse, retaliation

By Aliyah Schneider/ Bronx Times

Disclaimer: This story details various accusations of sexual abuse.

A homelessness case worker on unpaid leave is suing the New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) and two of its employees over allegations that an office manager subjected her to relentless sexual abuse while her supervisor turned a blind eye.

The suit, which was filed by Trishana Jones on Sept. 12 in Bronx County Supreme Court against DSS — as well as her alleged harasser and direct supervisor — claims that the office manager sexually abused her from 2019-2022 and the agency failed to properly investigate it after she reported it.

Her lawsuit centers on allegations against Dason Noble, an office manager at the Northern Boulevard Queens DSS office they worked at together, who had the authority to discipline her. Jones, who lives in the Edenwald Section of the Bronx, initially thought they might develop a consensual romantic relationship, but instead, he abused his authority, according to Jones’ claims.

“I deserve justice for what I had to endure, and the world needs to see what happened,” Jones, 38, told the Bronx Times in her first interview since filing the lawsuit. “And I don’t want to be in the darkness anymore.”

According to the suit, Noble regularly coerced her into having sex with him in the workplace despite her saying she did not want to. She also accuses him of making degrading sexual comments and groping her in the office, ordering her to take explicit pictures in the bathroom for him, locking her in a storage room with him and recording sexual encounters without her consent, forcing her to take a contraceptive pill and choking her nearly to the point of unconsciousness, which led to bruising on her neck.

In one instance, Jones walked home in the winter without a jacket because he took it while trying to lure her into the stock room, according to the complaint.

Jones is requesting back pay, interest, compensatory and punitive damages, past and present pain and suffering damages, as well as attorneys fees. She has been on unpaid leave since Nov. 7, 2022, having been diagnosed with PTSD as a result of the alleged ordeal, according to her lawyers.

A DSS spokesperson told the Bronx Times that the agency cannot comment on ongoing litigation or investigations involving personnel, but that the well-being of staff is its “top priority.” The agency investigates, verifies facts and takes appropriate action — including prompt disciplinary action when warranted — when it learns of sexual harassment, the spokesperson said.

“We do not tolerate any instances of sexual harassment and take any such reports incredibly seriously,” the spokesperson added. “As we conduct a thorough investigation, we are committed to taking necessary action against any bad actors when warranted.”

Read the full article from the Bronx Times and a statement from Partner James Vagnini here.

NYC May Need To Rethink Property Transfer Program

By David Holtzman/ Law360

Law360 (September 13, 2023, 8:45 PM EDT) — A City of New York program that transfers distressed or tax-delinquent apartment buildings to nonprofit agencies for redevelopment may be on shaky ground amid a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling and a lawsuit from property owners over the city’s failure to compensate them for lost equity.

The program, intended as a means for the city to renovate run-down properties without owning them directly, came under new scrutiny in the wake of the high court’s decision earlier this year in Tyler v. Hennepin County. The court said a state must give a property owner the chance to recover equity when their home is taken for nonpayment of taxes.

The high court’s ruling also brought fresh attention to the New York lawsuit, filed in 2019 in Manhattan federal court by three owners whose properties were taken through the city’s Third Party Transfer program.

The owners said they lost substantial equity when the city transferred ownership of their buildings to nonprofits Bridge Street Development Corporation and Neighborhood Restore. The city did not make a proper effort to notify them or give them a chance to address tax and building violations before taking the
properties, according to the lawsuit.

The program is also flawed because it has taken some properties that weren’t even run-down and owed a minimal amount in unpaid taxes or utility bills, the complaint said.

If a building on a given block is targeted for inclusion in the program, the city also targets other structures on that block that are tax-delinquent, whether or not they meet a statutory definition of “distressed.” The city defined a “distressed” property as one that has a tax lien of at least 15% of its value, and either five or more hazardous violations of the housing maintenance code or a lien of more than $1,000 for repairing “dangerous or unlawful conditions.”

New York Mayor Eric Adams and the city’s law office did not respond on Wednesday to a request for comment on the lawsuit or how the city might reform the transfer program.

A working group co-chaired by the city’s then-commissioner of the Department of Housing Preservation and Development, which manages the transfer program with the city’s finance department, recommended several changes in November 2021, including better communication with affected property owners. The group also said the city should consider tax delinquency and a building’s condition equally when weighing whether to take a property from its owner.

As a candidate for mayor, Adams criticized the program for discriminating against property owners of color, but he has said nothing about it since taking office in 2022, according to Matthew Berman, co-counsel for the three plaintiffs. Most of the properties taken through the program since it began in 1996
have been in 11 neighborhoods in the Bronx, Brooklyn and the Harlem section of Manhattan, according to a 2019 New York City Council report.

“I look forward to continuing reform discussions started in recent years, to ensure the next version of [Third Party Transfer] incentivizes owners to keep properties safe, habitable and healthy, to stay up to date on municipal bills, and to seek help immediately when they run into problems,” Pierina Sanchez, who represents one of the affected neighborhoods in the Bronx as the city councilor for District 14, told Law360 on Wednesday.

Sanchez chairs the council’s committee on housing and buildings.

In the Tyler case, the Supreme Court said the state of Minnesota gave no opportunity for a homeowner to recover the excess value in their property beyond their tax debt.

New York City has claimed its program is different for a number of reasons. In its 2019 report, the council noted that after the city issues a notice of foreclosure to property owners, it gives them four months to redeem their property by paying all outstanding arrears or entering into an installment plan to do so. The city has also said owners can sell their buildings before the city takes them as long as they pay the taxes that are due, Berman said.

“That doesn’t work, because you’ve only got a four-month window to act in,” he said. “It’s not so easy to sell a house in four months. It’s like a fire sale, and you’re going to lose a huge chunk of the value by being forced to sell under distressed circumstances.”

The three homeowners involved in the lawsuit also claimed they were not even notified of their options. McConnell Dorce, who owned a 3,200-square-foot multifamily building in the East New York neighborhood, said in the complaint he received no notice of the 2015 foreclosure action or a court’s judgment against him in 2017. He said he learned his building had been transferred when Neighborhood Restore posted a notice for tenants in 2018.

The other two owners were shareholders in housing cooperatives at two four-story buildings in Brooklyn; they also claimed they had no notice of the foreclosures. Bridge Street, the new owner, informed them after the transfer process that they had been converted from owners to renters, according to the
complaint.

In a separate case, a New York state appeals court in the Second Judicial Department in May overturned a lower court’s finding that the city had not given building owners a chance to pay their taxes prior to foreclosure. The city had provided the four-month window for the owners to respond, the court said,
although it took the opportunity to question aspects of the Third Party Transfer program.

“The loss of property ownership without compensation under the TPT program ‘is a widespread occurrence,’ often affecting ‘properties that are owned by minorities,'” according to the three-judge panel’s opinion. The panel encouraged the city council to address the issue of owners’ losing the equity in
their properties.

In the Dorce case, Manhattan U.S. District Judge John Koeltl denied the city’s motion to dismiss in June 2022, finding the three property owners had a basis for most of their claims. Since then, the parties have been engaged in discovery, Berman said.

McConnell Dorce et al. are represented by Matthew L. Berman, Robert J. Valli Jr. and Sara Wyn Kane of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP, Keith H. Wofford of White & Case LLP, and Alexander Simkin, Phillip G. Kraft, Leon Kotlyar and Gregg L. Weiner of Ropes & Gray LLP.

The City of New York is represented by Michael S. Adler, Daniel K. Crandall, Margaret A. Devoe, Andrea B. Feller and Kent M. Langloss of the New York City Law Department.

BSDC Kings Covenant Development Fund Company Inc. and Neighborhood Restore Housing Development Fund Corp. are represented by Brian J. Markowitz of Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP.

The case is McConnell Dorce et al. v. City of New York et al., case number 1:19-cv-02216, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

–Editing by Philip Shea.

Read the article at Law360 here.

US appeals court adopts lower bar for proving workplace bias claims

By Daniel Wiessner/ Reuters

Aug 21 (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court has thrown out its unique decades-old precedent that made it more difficult for workers to prove discrimination claims.

The en banc 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday revived a lawsuit claiming Dallas County, Texas, required female jail guards, but not men, to work at least one day each weekend, overruling its longstanding precedent that federal anti-discrimination law only prohibits bias in “ultimate employment decisions” such as hiring, promotions and setting pay.

That precedent imposed a more strict standard than Title VII of the Civil Rights of Act 1964 itself, which applies to any “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” the New Orleans-based court said.

“It is no wonder … that no other court of appeals applies so narrow a concept,” Circuit Judge Don Willett wrote for the 5th Circuit.

Jay Ellwanger, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the ruling makes clear that Title VII prohibits all workplace discrimination.

Read the full article from Reuters here.