Hill et al v. City of New York et al
| Ellen Ennis, Vickie Gordon, Cynthia Hill, Andrea Holly, Denise Inman, Rolando Lopez, Taura Pate and Gail Williams |
| Ljubomir Belusic, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Donald Church, City of New York, Charles F. Dowd, John and Jane Does 1 through 20, Francis Kelly, Raymond Kelly, Dr. David Lichtenstein, Local 1549, District Council 37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Richard F. Napolitano and Michael V. Polito |
| 1:2013cv06147 |
| November 6, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Pamela K. Chen |
| James Orenstein |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1391 Personal Injury |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
202
ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court amends its previous class certification and certifies the following two classes in this action:Section 1981 Rule 23(b)(2) class: All individuals who are curre ntly employed by the City of New York as Police Communications Technicians ("PCTs") or Supervisor Police Communications Technicians ("SPCTs") in the NYPD Communications Section.Section 1981 Rule 23(b)(3) class: All i ndividuals who are currently employed, or have been employed within the three years preceding the filing of this action on November 6, 2013, by the City of New York as Police Communications Technicians ("PCTs") or Supervisor Police Communications Technicians ("SPCTs") in the NYPD Communications Section. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 4/29/2019. (Brodziak, Maya)
|
|
Filing
115
MEMORANDUM & ORDER [Dkts. 89, 91, 104]: As set forth in the attached, the City Defendants' motion to dismiss [Dkt. 91] is granted in part and denied in part. The Court dismisses the following claims as to the City Defendants: (1) Plaintiffs' ; FMLA interference claim based on certification delay, miscalculation of eligibility hours, use of a designated FMLA number, and investigation of FMLA use (fifth cause of action); (2) Plaintiffs' FMLA retaliation claim based on the "high a bsentee" list (fifth cause of action); (3) Plaintiffs' First Amendment retaliation claim (fourth cause of action); and (4) Plaintiffs' New York State Labor Law claim (seventh cause of action).The following claims are not dismis sed and will proceed as to the City Defendants: (1) Plaintiffs' racial discrimination claims under Sections 1981 and 1983 (first cause of action); (2) NYSHRL racial discrimination claim (second cause of action); (3) NYCHRL racial discrimination claim (third cause of action); (4) Plaintiffs' FMLA interference claim based on the 30-minute call window and the miscalculation of FMLA hours used (fifth cause of action); (5) Plaintiffs' FMLA retaliation claim based on the requirement to perform mandatory overtime immediately upon returning from leave (fifth cause of action); and (6) Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim (sixth cause of action).For the reasons set forth in the attached, DC 37's motion to dismiss 89 Plaintiffs' Section 1981 racial discrimination claim (tenth cause of action) is granted insofar as Plaintiffs assert a direct discrimination claim, but denied on an acquiescence theory. Since DC 37 did not move to dismiss Plaintiffs' breac h of duty of fair representation claim (eighth cause of action), that claim will proceed.Plaintiffs motion to certify the proposed Section 1981 and FMLA classes, pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(2) for liability and injunctive relief [Dkt. 104], is granted. Ordered by Judge Pamela K. Chen on 9/28/2015. (Pelaez, Jenny)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
