Penzo v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Background

Emily Penzo sued her former employer, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also alleged retaliation and interference with benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

After a four-day trial, the jury found for Penzo on one claim: retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law. It awarded her $203,951.35 in back pay and found for Consolidated Edison on her other seven claims. The court entered judgment for the award, added $31,078.83 in prejudgment interest, and ordered post-judgment interest. The court later awarded Penzo $240,813.00 in attorneys’ fees and $16,888.07 in costs.

Penzo appealed the attorneys’ fee order and the court’s denial of her request for a new trial. Consolidated Edison also appealed the damages judgment and prejudgment interest, but voluntarily dismissed that appeal. Consolidated Edison then moved to stay enforcement of the judgment and fee order while Penzo’s appeals were pending. Penzo opposed the motion and asked the court to hold Consolidated Edison in contempt for not paying the judgment. Consolidated Edison separately requested oral argument.

Stay of Enforcement

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62 allows a party to obtain a stay of enforcement by providing a bond or other security. A supersedeas bond is security intended to ensure payment if the judgment remains due after an appeal. The court also explained that it may sometimes allow a stay without a bond if the party provides an acceptable alternative means of securing the judgment.

Consolidated Edison said it was able to pay and had received pre-approval for a bond covering the judgments and required interest. But it had not posted a bond, provided other security, or properly asked the court to waive the bond requirement. The court considered factors concerning the difficulty and timing of collection, the availability of funds, the cost of a bond, and the effect of a bond on other creditors. It found that Consolidated Edison’s financial ability to pay weighed in favor of a stay without a bond, but that the company was not in financial distress and could post a bond without harming other creditors.

The court also found that Consolidated Edison had not secured the judgment through an alternative method. It expressed concern that, given the parties’ relationship and the company’s prior failure to pay the judgment and attorneys’ fees, Penzo might face substantial delay in collecting if no bond were required. The court therefore declined to waive the bond requirement.

The court found good cause for a stay because Penzo’s appeal seeking a new trial could result in a new trial and could eliminate the existing judgment and fee award. A stay would avoid requiring Consolidated Edison to pay now and then seek repayment if the appeal led to a different result. At the same time, a bond was necessary to protect Penzo if she ultimately remained entitled to payment.

Contempt Request and Oral Argument

The court declined to hold Consolidated Edison in contempt. Although the court criticized the company’s conduct and statements about payment and bonding, it found no bad faith. The court also denied Consolidated Edison’s request for oral argument because oral argument was not necessary to decide the motion.

Disposition

The court granted Consolidated Edison’s motion to stay enforcement of the judgment and attorneys’ fee order on the condition that the company post a supersedeas bond by February 17, 2025. The bond must cover the amount of the judgment, associated interest, and the awarded attorneys’ fees and costs. The court denied Penzo’s request to hold Consolidated Edison in contempt and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.