Murray v. Brag Sales Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:23-cv-06610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Murray v. Brag Sales Inc., Judge Oetken denied Murray’s reconsideration motion, leaving dismissal of his City human-rights claim in place.
Jonathan Nathaniel Murray’s New York City Human Rights Law claim remained dismissed; the order did not dismiss his other claims.
What happened
In Murray v. Brag Sales Inc., Jonathan Nathaniel Murray, representing himself, asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of his New York City Human Rights Law claim. He submitted evidence that he lived in New York City during his employment.
The court said Murray’s filings showed that he lived in New York City, but his alleged discrimination occurred at Uneeda’s workplace in Garden City, outside New York City. Residence in the City alone was not enough to bring the claim under the City law.
Judge James Oetken denied the motion for reconsideration. The dismissal of Murray’s New York City Human Rights Law claim therefore remained in place, while the opinion stated that Murray’s other claims had not previously been dismissed.
The detailed version
- Murray v. Brag Sales Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06610
- James Oetken
- Oct. 31, 2024
Background
Jonathan Nathaniel Murray, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an employment-discrimination action against Brag Sales Inc., doing business as Uneeda Enterprises, and Bradley J. Gruber. He asserted claims under federal, New York State, and New York City law. In an earlier order, the court dismissed his New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) claim but denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss his other claims.
Murray then filed a submission asking the court to review new evidence that he lived in New York City. The court treated that submission as a motion for reconsideration of the NYCHRL dismissal. Murray submitted a driver’s license and earlier filings showing a New York City address. He also pointed to his admission to Elmhurst Hospital Center during medical leave.
Legal Standard
A motion for reconsideration generally requires a showing of a change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or serious injustice in the earlier decision. Courts also interpret filings from people representing themselves liberally, meaning they read those filings to identify the strongest arguments reasonably presented.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that it had overlooked relevant allegations in Murray’s original filings. Those materials adequately alleged that he lived in New York City during the relevant period. That fact, however, did not establish that the NYCHRL applied.
The court explained that the NYCHRL generally protects against discrimination occurring within New York City. Murray alleged that he worked at Uneeda’s Garden City office, outside New York City, and that the alleged conduct—including failure to accommodate his disability, a hostile work environment, and his firing—occurred at that workplace. The court therefore held that his New York City residence alone could not bring the claim within the NYCHRL.
Disposition
The court concluded that the NYCHRL claim had been properly dismissed because the alleged discriminatory acts occurred in Garden City rather than New York City. Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Murray’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 31. The opinion did not state that the other claims were dismissed in this order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.