Bivens v. Institute For Community Living, Inc. et al
| Heather N. Bivens |
| Institute For Community Living, Inc. and Howard Goldberg |
| 1:2014cv07173 |
| September 5, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Kings |
| Paul A. Engelmayer |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
84
OPINION AND ORDER: At the final pretrial conference on January 28, 2016, the Court directed the parties to file letters by February 1, 2016, regarding the appropriate standard of causation for gender discrimination claims under the New York City Hu man Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). Plaintiff Heather Bivens had proposed jury instructions suggesting that the burden fo r proving causation was lighter under the NYCHRL than under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-that, under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff had to show only that discriminatory motive "played a role," rather than showing it to be a "motivating factor" as required under Title VII. In response to the Court's request for further submissions on this iss ue, Bivens filed a letter stating that she "agrees... that proving gender bias 'played any role' in Ms. Bivens' termination is synonymous with proving gender bias was 'a motivating/actor."' Dkt. 81, at 1 (emphasi s in original). She acknowledged that Title VII and the NYCHRL "are aligned" on this issue. id. Defendants filed a letter taking the same position, but objecting that plaintiffs' proposed jury instruction on causation creates confus ion by interchangeably using the terms "motivating factor" and "played a role." Dkt. 82, at 2. The Court, accordingly, will instruct the jury that, as to both the Title VII and the NYCHRL causes of action, it is to apply the &qu ot;motivating factor" standard in evaluating plaintiffs claim that her termination was attributable to gender discrimination. The Court does not intend to charge the jury using the "played a role" formulation, because using this sep arate (though substantively identical) formulation alongside the "motivating factor" formulation has the potential to needlessly confuse the jury. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 2/3/2016) (cf)
|
|
Filing
51
OPINION & ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 34 and 38. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 4/17/2015) (kl)
|
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 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.
