Luo v. AIK Renovation Inc.

What the order did

The court attached a planned jury charge and verdict form to its order. The parties were directed to be prepared to discuss both documents on the first morning of trial. The opinion text does not include a jury verdict or a final judgment.

Claims described in the instructions

The jury charge states that Shixuan Luo claimed AIK Renovation discriminated against him because of race or national origin when it ended his employment in July 2022. It also states that Luo claimed AIK Renovation, Steve Nejasmic, and Michael Renosis treated him less favorably because of race or national origin during his employment. The instructions identify the discrimination claims as arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Luo also claimed that AIK Renovation did not pay him for his final period of work. The instructions identify related claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The court instructed the jury that it would apply the New York Labor Law to decide those wage claims, including whether Luo was paid the required minimum wage and overtime.

Planned legal standards

The charge instructed the jury to decide each claim and each defendant separately. It stated that Luo generally had to prove his claims by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that the claim was more likely true than not. For the Title VII termination claim, the jury would decide whether race or national origin was a motivating factor in AIK Renovation’s decision to terminate Luo. The instructions stated that Title VII liability for the termination claim applied to AIK Renovation, not the individual defendants, although the conduct of the individual defendants could be considered.

For the New York State and New York City claims, the jury would consider whether Luo was treated less well because of race or national origin. The charge also described defenses and employer-liability rules under those statutes, including the defense that conduct amounted only to petty slights or trivial inconveniences. Under the New York City Human Rights Law, the instructions stated that the individual defendants could be liable and described circumstances in which AIK Renovation could also be liable.

For the wage claim, the instructions stated that the minimum wage was $15 per hour and that overtime for work exceeding 40 hours in a week would be calculated at one and one-half times the minimum wage if the claim was proven. The charge also described possible compensatory and punitive damages if the jury found discrimination.

Disposition and significance

This was an order preparing the case for trial. Judge Lewis J. Liman did not rule on whether Luo or the defendants were legally entitled to prevail, and the attached verdict form contains unanswered questions. The order therefore resolved no underlying claim.