Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's retaliation claim under federal and state civil rights law and under the New York City Human Rights Law, finding that the amended complaint failed to provide a basis for a reasonable jury to conclude that the job offer that was extended to plaintiff was rescinded because of his inquiry to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. There is no dispute that the job offer was re-confirmed, even after defendant City employees were aware of the inquiry.
There also is no dispute that plaintiff failed to complete the routine paperwork stating that such a failure might result in his not being appointed to the position that was offered. Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate a causal connection between the adverse employment action and his EEOC inquiry, or that the stated reason for rescinding the job offer was a pretext for impermissible retaliation.
Student note: The Appellate Division noted that, while the order appealed from did not expressly address plaintiff's retaliation
claim, it unambiguously granted defendants' motion to dismiss in its
entirety. CPLR 2219(a) provides the court with broad leeway as to the
form of an order, and the parties addressed the claim in their motion
papers.
Case: Ruderman v. City of New York, NY Slip Op 06148 (1st Dep't September 27, 2016)
Here is the decision.
Monday's issue: Summary judgment on a legal malpractice clai
