Medina v. AAM 15 Management LLC

Background

Christina Medina brought claims against AAM 15 Management LLC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged, among other things, that AAM discriminated against her because she was pregnant while she worked as a front desk agent at two hotels. The court previously dismissed Medina’s New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claim.

Medina moved for entry of partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), or, alternatively, for certification of an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Her proposed appeal concerned whether a request for a reasonable accommodation is protected activity for purposes of a retaliation claim under the New York State Human Rights Law.

Rule 54(b) Motion

Rule 54(b) allows a court to enter final judgment on fewer than all claims only when multiple claims or parties are involved, at least one claim or party’s rights and liabilities have been finally determined, and the court expressly finds no just reason for delaying judgment. The court found that the first two requirements were satisfied because the case involved multiple claims and the New York State Human Rights Law retaliation claim had been dismissed.

The court nevertheless denied partial judgment. It explained that Rule 54(b) certification is reserved for situations involving an unusual hardship or injustice that immediate appellate review would alleviate. Medina argued that an appeal could prevent duplicative discovery and trial proceedings and would help resolve an important legal question. The court ruled that the possibility of additional discovery and trial costs was not enough and that Medina had not identified the required unusual hardship or injustice.

Interlocutory-Appeal Certification

Section 1292(b) permits a district court to certify an otherwise nonfinal order for immediate appeal if the order involves a controlling question of law, there is substantial ground for disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation. The party seeking certification must establish all three requirements, and the court retains discretion to deny certification even when the requirements are met.

The court found that the requirement concerning a substantial ground for disagreement favored certification because New York intermediate appellate courts had held that an initial request for a reasonable accommodation is not protected activity under the New York State Human Rights Law, while some federal district court decisions had reached the opposite conclusion in pregnancy-accommodation cases.

The court concluded, however, that the other requirements weighed against certification. It reasoned that an appeal to the Second Circuit, followed by possible certification to New York’s highest court and further proceedings in the district court, could take more than a year and prolong the litigation. The court determined that allowing the case to proceed to judgment, followed by any appeal from an adverse final outcome, would be more efficient. Because Medina had not satisfied all three requirements, the court denied her Section 1292(b) motion.

Disposition

The court denied Medina’s motion for partial judgment under Rule 54(b) and denied her motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal under Section 1292(b). It directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion.