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 ...
read more >
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.Gabriela Hybel - 10/03/2016