New York Employment Lawyer Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court has just handed down a decision in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn that will significantly impact the manner in which a plaintiff may prove a claim of employment discrimination.

In Mendelsohn, the issue was whether the plaintiff could prove his claim of age discrimination by submitting the testimony of other older employees who were fired by different managers than the ones that had fired the plaintiff. The Second Circuit, the Federal appeals court in New York, held that the trial court had improperly issued a per se rule against such evidence.

The Supreme Court determined that it was improper for the Second Circuit to reverse the district court’s order. According to the Supreme Court, “a district court is virtually always in the better position to assess the admissibility of the evidence in the context of the particular case before it.”

The Supreme Court also ruled that there is no per se rule regarding the admissibility of discrimination by other supervisors. The Court held that admissibility of such evidence should be based on many factors, “including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff’s circumstances and theory of the case,” a decision best left to the lower court judge.

The impact of Mendelsohn, therefore, appears to be a confirmation of the discretion and authority of the lower courts, placing boundaries on the appellate courts regarding factual determinations.

Labor and employment law issues, particularly in the context of the protection of federal anti-discrimination laws, are one of the significant subjects to be addressed on the Supreme Court’s docket during this current term. The Court will hear arguments from both employees and employers on issues ranging from age discrimination (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) and disability discrimination (Americans with Disabilities Act) protection to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filing issues to a case relating to retaliation under the Federal civil rights statutes. This was originally discussed in a recent Outside Counsel column in The New York Law Journal which referred to the Supreme Court’s employment law docket this term.

Among some of cases that the Court will decide will be whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s protections against retaliation by one’s employer can be extended to Federal employees. Another case poses the question of whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s requirement of filing a “charge” of discrimination is met by the filing by an employee with the EEOC of an intake questionnaire and accompanying affidavit. The Federal Civil Rights statutes will also be an area of focus for the Court. The statute at issue, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, does not contain the words “retaliation” or “retaliatory,” yet the question presented is whether a cause of action for race retaliation can be brought under the statute.

It is evident that the U.S. Supreme Court will be spending a great deal of its time grappling with the complex issues of labor and employment law. The employment law field is ever expanding and presents some of the most cutting-edge and developing legal issues of the day.

A former New York State Senate photographer, Joseph Maioriello, who is Caucasian, has prevailed in a Motion for Summary Judgment in his race discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The photographer claimed that he was terminated by then Minority Leader David Paterson due to his race and replaced by an African-American employee.

The photographer claimed that he had performed capably in the State Legislature for 26 years and claims that he was fired because some of the legislators that worked with him wanted a minority employee in his position. The defendants claim that his termination was a function of both poor performance and that he was a holdover from a past political leader and there would be questions of loyalty to the new Senate leadership.

A Motion for Summary Judgment is a dispositive motion. Defendants will make this type of motion and argue that there are no issues of fact for a jury to resolve and on those grounds, the case should be dismissed. The plaintiff, in these cases, must raise issues of fact and demonstrate that the issues of the case are best resolved by the court allowing them to make their case to a jury and having them decide. The jury would then determine if there was, in fact, discrimination in the employment decision or whether the non-discriminatory reasons offered by the employer are believable.

In this case, Judge Mordue of the Federal District Court of the Northern District of New York found there to be triable issues of fact in this case and it would be best for a jury to hear the cases presented by both sides and then make a determination at that point.

Our courts have consistently held that discrimination in the workplace is rarely done openly. In fact, it is most often done secretly, behind closed doors. Rarely, therefore, will there ever be direct evidence as may be required, for example, in a criminal case. In a criminal case we understand the burden of proof may have to be established “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” However, with all types of employment discrimination, whether it is because of age, a disability, gender, race, sexual orientation, a pregnancy, or any other protected reason, the burden of proof is not required to be satisfied “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” It may be established by circumstantial evidence.

In Ash v. Tyson Foods, 546 U.S. 454 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the context of discriminatory remarks should be considered. The Court stated that “the speaker’s meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom, and historical usage.”