Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(1) (the New York State Human Rights Law) and New York City, N.Y., Admin. Code § 8-107 (the New York City Human Rights Law), the statute of limitations is three years from the date that the claim accrued. N.Y. C.P.L.R. 214; New York City, N.Y., Admin. Code § 8-502(d). The limitations period tolls, though, during the period in which a complaint is filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the issuance by the EEOC of a right-to-sue letter.
Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), filed the present action against Defendant Bloomberg L.P. ("Bloomberg") after several current and former employees had filed charges with the EEOC alleging sex/pregnancy discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(k), 2000e-2. The Complaint alleged that Bloomberg had discriminated and/or retaliated against the claimants and other similarly situated employees after they had announced their pregnancies and had returned to work following maternity leave. Subsequently, Plaintiffs Jill Patricot, Tanys Lancaster, Janet Loures, Monica Prestia, Marina Kushnir, and Maria Mandalakis (collectively, the "Plaintiff-Intervenors") intervened in the action on their own behalf, asserting claims under Section 296(1) of the New York Executive Law (the "New York State Human Rights Law" or "NYSHRL") and Section 8-107 of the New York City Administrative Code (the "New York City Human Rights Law" or "NYCHRL"). Bloomberg sought summary judgment on claims asserted by the Plaintiff-Intervenors.
Under the circumstances, should Bloomberg’s motion for summary judgment be granted?
The Court held Bloomberg’s summary judgment motion was mostly granted with respect to claims by employees, alleging sex/pregnancy discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 2000e(k), 2000e-2, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(1) (the New York State Human Rights Law), and New York City, N.Y., Admin. Code § 8-107 (the New York City Human Rights Law), because there was insufficient evidence of adverse employment actions from being yelled at, negative performance reviews based on poor conduct, excessive monitoring, and voluntary changes in jobs. The Court further held that the claims based on conduct that occurred more than 300 days before the date that the employees filed their own EEOC charges were time-barred because they could not invoke the single filing rule and the continuing violation doctrine did not apply.