Case: Baergas v. City of New York

1:04-cv-02944 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: April 16, 2004

Closed Date: 2008

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 16, 2004, a former Macy’s employee filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff sued the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, Federated Logistics, Federated Department Stores, Inc., Macy’s East, the Frick Company, managerial staff and other employees at Macy’s East, and individual police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, New York State Human Rights Law, Executive Law §290, and the New York City Human Rights Law § 8-107. The plaintiff, represen…

On April 16, 2004, a former Macy’s employee filed this lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff sued the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, Federated Logistics, Federated Department Stores, Inc., Macy’s East, the Frick Company, managerial staff and other employees at Macy’s East, and individual police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, New York State Human Rights Law, Executive Law §290, and the New York City Human Rights Law § 8-107. The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, alleged that his employers discriminated against him because of his race. He further alleged that his employers accused him of stealing from the store, denied him legal or union representation, and subsequently took him to the police station after he refused to sign a document stating that he had stolen. The plaintiff sought punitive damages and legal fees.

The plaintiff had two allegations against his employers: (1) discrimination because the plaintiff and fellow employees of color were passed over for promotions despite the plaintiff’s lengthy employment at Macy’s and his positive performance reviews; and (2) hostile work environment as evidenced through racist comments and a “Shortage Awareness” program that rewarded employees for accusing fellow employees of theft. The plaintiff also claimed that on March 6, 2002, he was arrested for allegedly stealing from Macy’s. The plaintiff claimed that the prosecution continued despite his employer’s inability to produce proof of theft. The plaintiff therefore included the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and individual police officers for his alleged unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution.

On September 2, 2004 the defendants filed a motion to sever the plaintiff’s discrimination allegations from his arrest and prosecution allegations. The defendants argued that the allegations pointed to different occurrences. On September 26, 2005 U.S. Magistrate Judge Pitman denied the defendants’ motion. 2005 WL 2105550.

On April 1, 2005, the defendants filed three separate motions for summary judgement. The NYPD and the City of New York filed a motion for summary judgement on the grounds that: (1) “the NYPD is not a suable entity; and (2) the plaintiff failed to meet his burden to establish liability against the City of New York.” Macy’s filed a motion for summary judgement and claimed the plaintiff could not prove that he was passed over for promotion because of discrimination and that Macy’s could be held liable for the conduct of its employees in this case. Finally, an individual defendant manager at Macy’s East filed a motion for summary judgement on the claim that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence that the manager was involved in the plaintiff’s arrest or was liable for the plaintiff’s treatment at work. On March 15, 2006, Judge Jones granted all three motions for summary judgement citing the reasons laid out in the motions for summary judgement and for the plaintiff’s failure to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

On April 13, 2006, the plaintiff filed an appeal. On January 12, 2007, this appeal was dismissed with prejudice. No further explanation for the appeal or dismissal is accessible, and the case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Gabriela Hybel (10/3/2016)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4900206/parties/baergas-v-city-of-new-york/


Judge(s)

Jones, Barbara S. (New York)

Pitman, Henry B. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Shen, Michael (New York)

Wallace, Ian Francis (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Daitz, Elizabeth M (New York)

Eichenholtz, Seth D (New York)

Gugel, Alison Elaine (New York)

Krebs, Diane (New Jersey)

Raisty, Laura Mae (Massachusetts)

Saunders, Diane Marjorie (Massachusetts)

Judge(s)

Jones, Barbara S. (New York)

Pitman, Henry B. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Shen, Michael (New York)

Wallace, Ian Francis (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Daitz, Elizabeth M (New York)

Eichenholtz, Seth D (New York)

Gugel, Alison Elaine (New York)

Krebs, Diane (New Jersey)

Raisty, Laura Mae (Massachusetts)

Saunders, Diane Marjorie (Massachusetts)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:04-cv-02944

Docket [PACER]

Nov. 5, 2008

Nov. 5, 2008

Docket
1

1:04-cv-02944

Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand

April 16, 2004

April 16, 2004

Complaint
21

1:04-cv-02944

Memorandum of Law in Support of the Macy's Defendants' Motion to Sever

Baergas v. City of New York

Sept. 2, 2004

Sept. 2, 2004

Pleading / Motion / Brief
61

1:04-cv-02944

The Macy's Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment

April 1, 2005

April 1, 2005

Pleading / Motion / Brief
66

1:04-cv-02944

Brief in Support of Defendant Scott Chester's Motion for Summary Judgment

April 1, 2005

April 1, 2005

Pleading / Motion / Brief
55

1:04-cv-02944

Defendants City of New York and New York City Police Department's Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment

April 1, 2005

April 1, 2005

Pleading / Motion / Brief
81

1:04-cv-02944

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

June 17, 2005

June 17, 2005

Pleading / Motion / Brief
100

1:04-cv-02944

Opinion and Order

2005 WL 2105550, 2005 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 18785

Sept. 26, 2005

Sept. 26, 2005

Order/Opinion
103

1:04-cv-02944

Order

March 15, 2006

March 15, 2006

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4900206/baergas-v-city-of-new-york/

Last updated June 1, 2022, 3:03 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
100

OPINION and ORDER re: defendant's motion to sever is denied; and denying 42 SECOND MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint,.FIRST MOTION to Certify Class.FIRST MOTION to Certify Class. filed by Harold Baergas,, 23 FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint, Cross Motion and Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Sever. filed by Harold Baergas,. (Signed by Judge Henry B. Pitman on 8/25/05) (djc, )

Sept. 26, 2005

Sept. 26, 2005

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 16, 2004

Closing Date: 2008

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiff is a Hispanic man who worked at Macy's Department Store for ten years.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

City of New York, City

New York City Police Department , Union

Macy's East (New York), Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Retailer

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

State Anti-Discrimination Law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff

Discipline

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)

Promotion

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic