Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
CHAMBERS v. CAPITAL CITIES/ABC
April 7, 1994
ROBERT CHAMBERS, Plaintiff,
CAPITAL CITIES/ABC, DANIEL BURKE, AND ROBERT CALLAHAN, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: VINCENT L. BRODERICK
VINCENT L. BRODERICK, U.S.D.J.
The jurisdiction of this court under 28 USC 1331 is invoked in a complaint setting forth claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 USC 621 et seq ("Age Discrimination Act"), including the Fair Labor Standards Act as referred to in 29 USC 626(b). The complaint also alleges pendent state claims asserting liability under the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 290 et seq.) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYC Administrative Code § 8-101 et seq.) ("City law"). The City law provides in § 8-502(a):
Except as otherwise provided by law, any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice . . . shall have a cause of action in any court of competent jurisdiction for damages, including punitive damages . . . unless such person has filed a complaint with the [City Commission on Human Rights], or with the [State Division of Human Rights] with respect to such alleged unlawful discriminatory practice.
Motions have been filed by defendants to dismiss the complaint (a) as to the pendent state and City law claims (the "pendent claims") as inappropriately joined; (b) in the alternative to dismiss the claim under the City law as impermissible in whole, and as to punitive damages; (c) as to Daniel Burke and Robert Callahan ("individual defendants"); and (d) as to the Fair Labor Standards Act claim.
These motions are disposed of as follows:
(a) the claim under the City law is dismissed to the extent that it seeks punitive damages;
(b) dismissal of the pendent claims as inappropriately joined is denied, as is the application to dismiss as impermissible the entire claim under the City law;
(c) the claims against the individual defendants are dismissed under conditions set forth below;
(d) the Fair Labor Standards Act claim is dismissed as a separate claim, but relief may be obtained as set forth in 29 USC 626(b) if a violation of the Age Discrimination Act is established.
All other applications of the parties including requests for sanctions are denied without prejudice.
Supplemental jurisdiction is provided by 28 USC 1367 whenever a state law claim is part of the same case or controversy as the claim over which the federal court has original jurisdiction. This criterion fits the current state and City law claims. See Promisel v. First American Artificial Flowers, 943 F.2d 251 (2d Cir 1991), cert. denied 117 L. Ed. 2d 110, 112 S. Ct. 939 (1992). Duplicative litigation at multiple levels of government ...
Buy This Entire Record For