Springs v. City of New York

Background

The opinion concerns Gordon Springs’s remaining retaliation claims against the City of New York 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. The court had previously addressed the case in a March 29, 2019 order.

The case was set for trial on September 20, 2021. A jury was selected on September 15 and then dismissed for the long weekend. On September 18, Springs, who had not been vaccinated against COVID-19, reported that he was experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. The court adjourned the trial for one week and directed him to quarantine. Although Springs received two negative PCR test results during that week, he reported on September 27 that he was still sick and could not leave his apartment for the trial scheduled two days later. The court therefore declared a mistrial and dismissed the jury.

Motions and Arguments

On January 18, 2022, the City moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to prosecute. The City argued that Springs had made a transparent attempt to avoid appearing for trial, significantly delayed resolution of the case, and prevented courtrooms, trial dates, and jury pools from being used for other trial-ready cases.

The City also moved to adjourn the next trial date because of its counsel’s travel plans and the possibility that counsel would need to remain out of court after returning.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 41(b) permits a court, in its discretion, to dismiss a case when a plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a court order. The court described dismissal for failure to prosecute as a harsh remedy that should be used only in extreme situations.

Applying the five factors identified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the court concluded that dismissal was not warranted. The court said the delay technically resulted from Springs’s claim of illness rather than from a failure to prosecute. Although the court had doubts about whether Springs was actually sick, it did not want to risk exposing jurors to COVID-19 or another contagious illness. The City was prejudiced by the delay, but that fact alone was insufficient. The court also concluded that court-calendar congestion did not outweigh Springs’s opportunity to have his case heard, and Springs had not been warned beforehand that the case could be dismissed.

Rulings

Judge McMahon denied the City’s motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. The court stated that jury selection would take place on July 6, 2022, and that this would be Springs’s last opportunity to try the case. The court warned that if Springs did not take that opportunity, his case would be dismissed with prejudice.

The court also denied the City’s motion to adjourn the July 6 trial date. It directed that there would be no adjournment and stated that the City’s Corporation Counsel could assign a different lawyer if necessary. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 163 and 175.