Trivedi v. N.Y.S. Unified Court System

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District Trivedi v. N.Y.S. Unified Court System

Trivedi v. N.Y.S. Unified Court System

Plaintiff:	Dhiri Trivedi
Defendant:	N.Y.S. Unified Court System
Case Number:	1:2010cv07356
Filed:	September 24, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Queens
Presiding Judge:	Paul A. Crotty
Nature of Suit:	Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 2000
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
September 10, 2013	Filing 75 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court accepts the U.S. Magistrate Judge's July 16, 2013 Report and Recommendation that summary judgment be granted to Defendant for two reasons: (1)Plaintiffs waived their Title VII claims when they signed the Release Agreement; and (2) even if the Release Agreement was not a valid waiver of Plaintiffs' Title VII rights, Plaintiffs failed to show that the OCA's rationale for requiring Plaintiffs to take language proficiency exams (whic h they failed) was pretextual and that the real reason for OCA's testing requirement was discriminatory. Accordingly, the defendant's consolidated motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and terminate the following cases: 10-Civ-7356;, 10-Civ-7390;, 10-Civ-7405;, 10-Civ-7406; 10-Civ-7659;, 10-Civ-8575 (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 9/9/2013) (js)
September 26, 2011	Filing 16 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant DC 37s motions are GRANTED in their entirety; OCAs motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically: (1) DC 37s motions to dismiss Ba, Drammeh and Secks claim s against it, are GRANTED in their entirety. (No. 10 Civ. 7405, ECF No. 11; No. 10 Civ. 7406, ECF No. 12; No. 10 Civ. 7659, ECF No. 11.) DC 37 is therefore no longer a defendant in this action. OCAs motion to dismiss Bas claims is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (No. 10 Civ. 7405, ECF No. 20). OCAs motion is GRANTED with respect to claims raised under: the ADEA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; the NYSHRL, pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290, et seq.; and Title VII, based on retaliation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. OCAs motion is DENIED with respect to Bas Title VII claim based on discrimination. OCAs motion to dismiss Bhattacharjees claims is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (No. 10 Ci v. 7390, ECF No. 7.) OCAs motion is GRANTED with respect to claims raised under: the ADEA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; and Title VII, based on retaliation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. OCAs motion is DENIED w ith respect to Bhattacharjees Title VII claim based on discrimination. Bhattacharjees request to amend his complaint to include a Section 1983 claim, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is DENIED. OCAs motion to dismiss Drammehs claims is GRANTED IN P ART and DENIED IN PART. (No. 10 Civ. 7406, ECF No. 20.) OCAs motion is GRANTED with respect to claims raised under: the ADEA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; the NYCHRL, pursuant to N.Y. City Admin. §§ 8-101, et seq.; the N YSHRL, pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290, et seq.; and Title VII, based on retaliation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. OCAs motion is DENIED with respect to Drammehs Title VII claim based on discrimination, but Drammehs d iscrimination claim is limited to national origin, color and race. OCAs motion to dismiss Secks claims is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (No.10 Civ. 7659, ECF No. 20.) OCAs motion is GRANTED with respect to claims raised under:the ADEA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; the NYCHRL, pursuant to N.Y. City Admin.§§ 8-101, et seq.; the NYSHRL, pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290, et seq.; and Title VII, basedon retaliation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 200 0e, et seq. OCAs motion is DENIED with respect toSecks Title VII claim based on discrimination.OCAs motion to dismiss Trivedis claims is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.(No. 10 Civ. 7356, ECF No. 7.) OCAs motion is GRANTED with respect to claims r aisedunder: the ADEA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; the NYCHRL, pursuant to N.Y. City Admin.§§ 8-101, et seq.; the ADA, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112, et seq.; and Title VII, basedon retaliation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et ~ OCA's motion is DENIED with respect toTrivedi's Title VII claim based on discrimination, but Trivedi's discrimination claim is limited tonational origin.(8) Trivedi's request to amend her complaint to include a Section 1983 claim, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, is DENIED.Plaintiffs' remaining Title VII discrimination claims against OCA are referred to Magistrate Judge Maasfor general pretrial matters and dispositive motions. (11 in 1: 10-cv-07405-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by DC 37 Local 1070, (20 in 1:10-cv-07406-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by Office of the Court Administration, (7 in 1:10-cv-07356-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by N.Y.S. Unified Court System, (20 in 1:10-cv-07405-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by Office of the Courts Administration, (20 in 1:10-cv-07659-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by O.C.A. Office of Court Administrative, (7 in 1:10-cv-07390-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by NYS Unifie d Court System, (11 in 1:10-cv-07659-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by DC 37 Local 1070, (12 in 1:10-cv-07406-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by DC 37 Local 1070, Motions terminated: (20 in 1:10-cv-07406-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Office of the Court Administration, (11 in 1:10-cv-07659-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss. filed by DC 37 Local 1070, (20 in 1:10-cv-07659-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss. filed by O.C.A. Office of Court Administrative, (11 in 1:10-cv-07405-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss . filed by DC 37 Local 1070, (12 in 1:10-cv-07406-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss filed by DC 37 Local 1070, (7 in 1:10-cv-07390-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss filed by NYS Unified Court System, (20 in 1:10-cv-07405-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Office of the Courts Administration, (7 in 1:10-cv-07356-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss filed by N.Y.S. Unified Court System. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 9/26/11) Copies Sent By Chambers. (pl)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 10, 2013

Filing 75 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court accepts the U.S. Magistrate Judge's July 16, 2013 Report and Recommendation that summary judgment be granted to Defendant for two reasons: (1)Plaintiffs waived their Title VII claims when they signed the Release Agreement; and (2) even if the Release Agreement was not a valid waiver of Plaintiffs' Title VII rights, Plaintiffs failed to show that the OCA's rationale for requiring Plaintiffs to take language proficiency exams (whic h they failed) was pretextual and that the real reason for OCA's testing requirement was discriminatory. Accordingly, the defendant's consolidated motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and terminate the following cases: 10-Civ-7356;, 10-Civ-7390;, 10-Civ-7405;, 10-Civ-7406; 10-Civ-7659;, 10-Civ-8575 (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 9/9/2013) (js)

September 26, 2011

Filing 16 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant DC 37s motions are GRANTED in their entirety; OCAs motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically: (1) DC 37s motions to dismiss Ba, Drammeh and Secks claim s against it, are GRANTED in their entirety. (No. 10 Civ. 7405, ECF No. 11; No. 10 Civ. 7406, ECF No. 12; No. 10 Civ. 7659, ECF No. 11.) DC 37 is therefore no longer a defendant in this action. OCAs motion to dismiss Bas claims is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (No. 10 Civ. 7405, ECF No. 20). OCAs motion is GRANTED with respect to claims raised under: the ADEA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; the NYSHRL, pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290, et seq.; and Title VII, based on retaliation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. OCAs motion is DENIED with respect to Bas Title VII claim based on discrimination. OCAs motion to dismiss Bhattacharjees claims is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (No. 10 Ci v. 7390, ECF No. 7.) OCAs motion is GRANTED with respect to claims raised under: the ADEA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; and Title VII, based on retaliation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. OCAs motion is DENIED w ith respect to Bhattacharjees Title VII claim based on discrimination. Bhattacharjees request to amend his complaint to include a Section 1983 claim, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is DENIED. OCAs motion to dismiss Drammehs claims is GRANTED IN P ART and DENIED IN PART. (No. 10 Civ. 7406, ECF No. 20.) OCAs motion is GRANTED with respect to claims raised under: the ADEA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; the NYCHRL, pursuant to N.Y. City Admin. §§ 8-101, et seq.; the N YSHRL, pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290, et seq.; and Title VII, based on retaliation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. OCAs motion is DENIED with respect to Drammehs Title VII claim based on discrimination, but Drammehs d iscrimination claim is limited to national origin, color and race. OCAs motion to dismiss Secks claims is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (No.10 Civ. 7659, ECF No. 20.) OCAs motion is GRANTED with respect to claims raised under:the ADEA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; the NYCHRL, pursuant to N.Y. City Admin.§§ 8-101, et seq.; the NYSHRL, pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290, et seq.; and Title VII, basedon retaliation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 200 0e, et seq. OCAs motion is DENIED with respect toSecks Title VII claim based on discrimination.OCAs motion to dismiss Trivedis claims is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.(No. 10 Civ. 7356, ECF No. 7.) OCAs motion is GRANTED with respect to claims r aisedunder: the ADEA, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; the NYCHRL, pursuant to N.Y. City Admin.§§ 8-101, et seq.; the ADA, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112, et seq.; and Title VII, basedon retaliation, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et ~ OCA's motion is DENIED with respect toTrivedi's Title VII claim based on discrimination, but Trivedi's discrimination claim is limited tonational origin.(8) Trivedi's request to amend her complaint to include a Section 1983 claim, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, is DENIED.Plaintiffs' remaining Title VII discrimination claims against OCA are referred to Magistrate Judge Maasfor general pretrial matters and dispositive motions. (11 in 1: 10-cv-07405-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by DC 37 Local 1070, (20 in 1:10-cv-07406-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by Office of the Court Administration, (7 in 1:10-cv-07356-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by N.Y.S. Unified Court System, (20 in 1:10-cv-07405-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by Office of the Courts Administration, (20 in 1:10-cv-07659-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by O.C.A. Office of Court Administrative, (7 in 1:10-cv-07390-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by NYS Unifie d Court System, (11 in 1:10-cv-07659-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by DC 37 Local 1070, (12 in 1:10-cv-07406-PAC -FM) Motion to Dismiss filed by DC 37 Local 1070, Motions terminated: (20 in 1:10-cv-07406-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Office of the Court Administration, (11 in 1:10-cv-07659-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss. filed by DC 37 Local 1070, (20 in 1:10-cv-07659-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss. filed by O.C.A. Office of Court Administrative, (11 in 1:10-cv-07405-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss . filed by DC 37 Local 1070, (12 in 1:10-cv-07406-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss filed by DC 37 Local 1070, (7 in 1:10-cv-07390-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss filed by NYS Unified Court System, (20 in 1:10-cv-07405-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Office of the Courts Administration, (7 in 1:10-cv-07356-PAC -FM) MOTION to Dismiss filed by N.Y.S. Unified Court System. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Crotty on 9/26/11) Copies Sent By Chambers. (pl)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Trivedi v. N.Y.S. Unified Court System
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dhiri Trivedi
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: N.Y.S. Unified Court System
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?