University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name United States v. New York Transit Authority EE-NY-0201
Docket / Court 1:93-cv-03354-EHN-JMA ( E.D.N.Y. )
State/Territory New York
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
On July 27, 1993, the U.S. Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit under Title VII against the New York City Transit Authority in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York. The D.O.J. sought injunctive relief alleging that the defendant had violated Title VII's prohibition ... read more >
On July 27, 1993, the U.S. Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit under Title VII against the New York City Transit Authority in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York. The D.O.J. sought injunctive relief alleging that the defendant had violated Title VII's prohibition against retaliation by maintaining a policy under which employees who filed discrimination complaints with outside agencies were prohibited from filing discrimination charges with the Authority's equal employment opportunity division. The D.O.J. argued the Authority's policy of denying employees the right to have their claim filed with the internal EEO department was an adverse employment action used against employees who sought to challenge discriminatory actions by the Authority.

On March 17, 1994, the district court (Judge Eugene H. Nickerson) denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint as moot since it had changed it policies.

On April 21, 1995, the district court (Judge Nickerson) granted the D.O.J.'s motion for summary judgment on its retaliation claim and denied defendant's cross-motion for either summary judgment or dismissal, finding that even though the Authority had ceased its policy there was a significant risk that the Authority would resume this behavior. The court further held the Authority's policy embodied an "adverse employment action" in violation of Title VII's prohibition against retaliation.

On October 8, 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Judges Dennis G. Jacobs, Pierre L. Nelson, and Fred I. Parker) upheld the district court's decision that the D.O.J.'s claim was not moot, but reversed the district court's decision to grant the D.O.J.'s motion for summary judgment on its retaliation claim. The Second Circuit held that the Authority's policy was a permissive defensive measure that, although adverse to the employee, did not rise to the level of being retaliatory.

We have no further information on this case.

Janani Iyengar - 10/17/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Defendant-type
Transportation
General
Retaliation
Plaintiff Type
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) New York City
Plaintiff Description U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of employees who filed discrimination complaints
Indexed Lawyer Organizations U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 1995
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
93 CV 3354 (E.D.N.Y.) 03/19/1997
EE-NY-0201-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Memorandum and Order 03/17/1994 (846 F.Supp. 227) (E.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0201-0006 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Memorandum and Order 04/21/1995 (885 F.Supp. 442) (E.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0201-0007 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Opinion 10/08/1996 (97 F.3d 672)
EE-NY-0201-0008 PDF | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: Google Scholar
Judges Azrack, Joan Marie (E.D.N.Y.) [Magistrate]
EE-NY-0201-9000
Jacobs, Dennis G. (Second Circuit)
EE-NY-0201-0008
Leval, Pierre Nelson (Second Circuit, S.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0201-0008
Nickerson, Eugene Hoffman (E.D.N.Y.)
EE-NY-0201-0006 | EE-NY-0201-0007 | EE-NY-0201-9000
Parker, Fred I. (Second Circuit, D. Vt.)
EE-NY-0201-0008
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Dimsey, Dennis J. (District of Columbia)
EE-NY-0201-0008
Dulen, Maureen T (District of Columbia)
EE-NY-0201-0007 | EE-NY-0201-9000
Fenton, William B. (District of Columbia)
EE-NY-0201-0006 | EE-NY-0201-0007
Lehmann, Christopher (New York)
EE-NY-0201-9000
Patrick, Deval L. (District of Columbia)
EE-NY-0201-0008
Peraertz, Louis E. (District of Columbia)
EE-NY-0201-0008
Royster, Steven B. (District of Columbia)
EE-NY-0201-0006
Defendant's Lawyers Berger, Barbara (New York)
EE-NY-0201-0008
Cosenza, Albert C. (New York)
EE-NY-0201-0006 | EE-NY-0201-0007
Schoolman, Richard (New York)
EE-NY-0201-0006 | EE-NY-0201-0007 | EE-NY-0201-0008 | EE-NY-0201-9000
Other Lawyers McDowell, Douglas S. (District of Columbia)
EE-NY-0201-0008
Williams, Robert E. (District of Columbia)
EE-NY-0201-0008

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -