{ September/07/2010 }


CLE ONLINE STORE
Select your program & register now!




FEATURED CLE
Article 81 Guardianship Prectice: Perspectives From the Bench & Bar
PURCHASE ›

News & Articles


August/1/2010

Labor & Employment Practice

By Glen P. Doherty, Esq.
McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams, P.C.

(From the Summer 2010 Newsletter)

A slow summer at the Appellate Division (with respect to labor and employment decisions) presents the opportunity to review a recent case from the Court of Appeals concerning whether an employee working out-of-state can assert a claim under the New York State Human Rights Law.  In Hoffman v. Parade Publications (2010 NY Slip Op 5706 [July 1, 2010]), defendant Parade Publications ("Parade") is the publisher of a nationally syndicated general interest magazine that is distributed in hundreds of American newspapers. Between 2002 and January 1, 2008, plaintiff Howard Hoffman ("Hoffman") -- a resident of Georgia, who worked at Parade's office in Atlanta -- served as a managing director for Parade's Newspaper Relations Group (NRG). His duties included developing and overseeing accounts relative to the inclusion of Parade in newspapers in 10 states primarily located in the south and southwest. Hoffman did not service any accounts in New York.

In October 2007, Randy Siegel, President and Publisher of Parade, called Hoffman in Atlanta from Parade's New York City headquarters, advised Hoffman that the Atlanta office would be closed by year's end, and that his employment was being terminated. Hoffman thereafter commenced an age discrimination action against Parade asserting that his termination violated the New York State Human Rights Law.

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for, among other reasons, lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hoffman opposed the motion, asserting that he attended quarterly meetings in New York City, that the NRG was managed from -- and all corporate contracts were negotiated through -- the New York City office, and that defendant's decision to terminate him was made and executed in New York City.

Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for want of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Human Rights Law does not appy to a plaintiff who does not reside in New York because the "impact" of defendant's alleged discriminatory conduct was not felt within those boundaries. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated the complaint, holding that an "out-of-jurisdiction" employee's allegation that a discriminatory decision to terminate was made in New York City, if established, is sufficient to demonstrate that New York has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. The Appellate Division certified to the Court of Appeals the question whether its order reversing the judgment of Supreme Court was properly made.

In answering the certified question in the negative, Court of Appeals noted that the Legislature enacted the Human Rights Law through its invocation of "the state police power of [New York] for the protection of the public welfare, health and peace of the people of this state" (Executive Law § 290 [2] [emphasis supplied]). The law declares that the State of New York "has the responsibility to act to assure that every individual within [New York State] is afforded an equal opportunity to enjoy a full and productive life," and that failure to afford equal opportunity "threatens the peace, order, health, safety and general welfare of the state and its inhabitants" (Executive Law § 290 [3] [emphasis supplied]).
According to the Court, the obvious intent of the State Human Rights Law is to protect "inhabitants" and persons "within" the State, meaning that those who work in New York fall within the class of persons who may bring discrimination claims in New York. Therefore, the Court concluded that a non-resident must plead and prove that the alleged discriminatory conduct had an impact in New York.

The Court further observed that the Human Rights Law's "extraterritorial" provision underscored defendant's argument that the law does not protect a non-resident like Hoffman. Enacted in 1975, this amendment called for the application of the State Human Rights Law "to certain acts committed outside" New York (Executive Law § 298-a). The thrust of section 298-a is to "outlaw certain discriminatory practices committed outside New York State against New York residents and businesses" (Sponsor's Mem, Bill Jacket L 1975, at 9, ch 622 § 2). Specifically, it protects New York residents, domestic corporations, and corporations doing business in New York from discriminatory acts committed outside the state (see Executive Law § 298-a [1]), and subjects New York residents and domestic corporations who commit an "unlawful discriminatory practice" against New York residents outside the state to almost all of the provisions of the law (Executive Law § 298-a [2] [excepting the application of the penal provisions]; see Mem of the Exec Director of the Law Revision Comm, Bill Jacket, L 1975, at 22-23, ch 662, § 2; see also Budget Rep on Bills, Bill Jacket L 1975, at 16, ch 662, § 2). Thus, the Court reasoned that, under this statutory scheme, while New York residents may bring a claim against New York residents and corporations who commit "unlawful discriminatory practices" outside the state, the Legislature plainly has not extended such protections to non-residents like Hoffman, who are unable to demonstrate that the impact of the discriminatory act was felt inside the State.

(From the June 2010 Newsletter
(From the May 2010 Newsletter)
(From the April 2010 Newsletter)
(From the March 2010 Newsletter)
(From the February 2010 Newsletter)
(From the January 2010 Newsletter) 






facebooklinkedin


August 2010 NEWSLETTER


Albany County Bar Association
The Stedman House, 1 Lodge Street, 2nd Floor, Albany, NY 12207 } Tel: 518-445-7691 } Fax: 518-445-7511
Contact Us at: acba@albanycountybar.com

Copyright © Albany County Bar Association, 2010. All rights reserved.

Web Site Design by: Spiral Design Studio