Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York

Background

A union and two New York City Fire Department Emergency Medical Services Bureau employees brought a proposed class action against the City of New York, the Fire Department, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, and several unnamed defendants. The plaintiffs assert claims under federal civil-rights statutes and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. They allege that the discretionary promotion process for ranks above lieutenant results in disparate treatment and disparate impact based on race, gender, disability, and use of medical leave.

The parties asked the court to resolve two discovery disputes: the scope of information about other discrimination complaints and whether merits discovery should be separated from class-certification discovery and paused until the class-certification motion was decided.

Discovery about other complaints

The plaintiffs requested complaints concerning discrimination in Fire Department promotional practices. The defendants proposed limiting production to substantiated complaints, along with jury verdicts and settlements, concerning race, gender, disability, and retaliation for using leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act or other medical leave in the Emergency Medical Services promotional process.

The court rejected the limitation to substantiated complaints. It reasoned that unsubstantiated complaints may still lead to relevant evidence and that the defendants had not specifically shown that searching for the documents would be burdensome. The court did, however, limit the required search and production to the period from 2012 to the present. The order requires production of all formal internal and administrative complaints, whether substantiated or unsubstantiated, as well as jury verdicts and settlements resulting from the specified claims.

Bifurcation and limits on merits discovery

The defendants asked the court to bifurcate, or separate, class-certification discovery from merits discovery and to pause merits discovery until the class-certification motion was resolved. They argued that class-certification briefing would clarify the class definition and narrow the remaining discovery. The plaintiffs opposed bifurcation, arguing that it would cause delay and duplicate discovery.

The court held that the defendants had not shown good cause to halt merits discovery altogether. It therefore denied the defendants’ request to bifurcate class-certification discovery from merits discovery. The court concluded that some merits discovery would be needed whether class certification was granted or denied, although its scope could change.

The court nevertheless temporarily limited merits discovery while the class-certification motion was pending. The discovery could concern only the plaintiffs’ alleged race, gender, and medical-leave discrimination claims and could cover only the period from 2012 to the present. The court ordered the parties to complete class-certification discovery by March 29, 2020, and to submit a proposed scheduling order for Judge Lewis J. Liman’s approval by March 16, 2020.

Disposition

The court ordered the specified production of complaints, jury verdicts, and settlements; denied the defendants’ request to bifurcate class-certification discovery from merits discovery; allowed limited merits discovery to proceed pending briefing and resolution of the class-certification motion; and imposed the stated scheduling deadlines.