Olaechea v. City Of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:17-cv-04797
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Olaechea v. City Of New York, Judge Abrams scheduled argument on retaliation-related front-pay issues and requested tax returns, without deciding them.
Angelique Olaechea, the City of New York, Captain Vincent Greany, and their counsel, who were directed to prepare for argument on the identified issues.
What happened
In Olaechea v. City Of New York, the court scheduled oral argument for May 9, 2022, concerning the plaintiff’s retaliation claims and possible front-pay award. The opinion does not state a final ruling on those issues.
The parties were directed to address whether Captain Vincent Greany participated in the conduct underlying the retaliation claims beyond submitting a September 8, 2016 transfer request. They also had to discuss whether the jury could award front pay, whether an award of less than twelve years could make the plaintiff whole, and the appropriate amount and supporting documents if front pay were awarded.
Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed the plaintiff’s counsel to provide the plaintiff’s tax returns from her retirement from the New York Police Department through the present. The order scheduled argument and requested information; it did not grant or deny a motion or resolve the front-pay questions.
The detailed version
- Olaechea v. City Of New York · No. 1:17-cv-04797
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 4, 2022
Nature of the order
The court scheduled oral argument for May 9, 2022, and identified issues the parties had to be prepared to address. The order does not decide those issues or state a final disposition of the case.
Issues for argument
The parties were directed to discuss whether Angelique Olaechea intended to argue that Captain Vincent Greany actually participated in the conduct supporting her retaliation claims beyond submitting a September 8, 2016 transfer request, and, if so, the basis for that argument.
They also had to address whether the jury was prevented from awarding front pay because the court did not specifically instruct the jury about front pay. The court asked whether Olaechea could be made whole through a front-pay award of less than twelve years, or whether her November 30, 2021 declaration adequately showed that she had no reasonable prospect of obtaining alternative employment before retirement age.
If the court upheld the jury’s front-pay award or exercised its discretion to award front pay, the parties were required to present their positions on the proper amount, including a detailed breakdown and documentary support. The court further directed Olaechea’s counsel to provide her tax returns for the period from her retirement from the New York Police Department through the present.
Disposition
The opinion is a scheduling and information-request order. It does not grant or deny a motion, decide liability, or determine whether front pay should be awarded or in what amount.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.