Filed Date: April 20, 1993
Closed Date: 1997
Clearinghouse coding complete
On April 20, 1993, plaintiffs, a class of 145 manual laborers formerly employed by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (the "Parks Department"), and the labor union representing such employees, brought this action against the Parks Department, the City of New York and the New York City Department of Personnel (collectively "defendants") under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §626 et seq. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs alleged that as part of a reduction in force in June 1991, defendants discriminatorily eliminated the job title of Laborer to which the 145 individuals belonged. This job title consisted of 187 employees aged 40 and older. Specifically, plaintiffs claimed that the layoffs, forced retirements and demotions of the Laborers were unlawful under two doctrines of age discrimination law: disparate impact and disparate treatment.
Following a trial by jury, which began on September 13, 1995, the jury found for defendants as to all claims. Specifically, the jury found that plaintiffs had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (1) the disparate treatment discrimination claim in that plaintiffs had failed to prove that age was a motivating factor in defendants' decision to lay off all or substantially all individuals in the title of Laborer in the Parks Department, and (2) the disparate impact claim in that plaintiffs had failed to prove that an identified employment practice had a disparate impact on the 145 Laborers and that an identified employment practice caused the statistical disparity of which plaintiffs complained.
On December 14, 1995, the district court (Judge Allen G. Schwartz) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs appealed only their disparate impact claim, arguing that the district court erred when it refused to instruct the jury that a nondiscriminatory "bottom line" was no defense to a disparate impact claim. However, on May 14, 1997, the Second Circuit (Judge Thomas Meskill) confirmed the jury instructions given by the district court.
Summary Authors
Kunyi Zhang (6/24/2010)
Meskill, Thomas Joseph (Connecticut)
Schwartz, Allen G. (New York)
Vladeck, Judith P (New York)
Sheiner, Naomi (New York)
Last updated Dec. 19, 2024, 12:46 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 20, 1993
Closing Date: 1997
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A class of 145 manual laborers formerly em-ployed by the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and the labor union representing such employees.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: Unknown
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, City
New York City Department of Personnel, City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Issues
Discrimination Area:
Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff
Discrimination Basis:
EEOC-centric: