Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:10-cv-06950
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., Judge Torres ordered the court to decide Title VII disparate impact while a jury decides specified related claims.
The plaintiffs and defendants in this gender-discrimination case, because the order assigns particular claims to the jury or the court and sets the parties’ trial-preparation requirements.
What happened
Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. involves the plaintiffs’ gender-discrimination claims under federal law and New York City law. The parties agreed that the jury would decide several claims but disagreed about who would decide the federal disparate-impact claim.
The plaintiffs argued that the court must decide that claim. The defendants argued that the jury should decide all relevant issues because the claims overlap and the jury’s findings would bind the court.
Judge Analisa Torres ruled that the court will try the federal disparate-impact claim, while the jury will decide the federal and city disparate-treatment claims and the city disparate-impact claim. She also set pretrial filing and exhibit deadlines and excused the parties from submitting witness affidavits.
The detailed version
- Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC. · No. 1:10-cv-06950
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 31, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs allege gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law. The case will proceed in two phases: a liability phase, called Phase I, and a remedial phase, called Phase II.
The parties agreed that the Phase I jury would decide the plaintiffs’ Title VII and New York City Human Rights Law disparate-treatment claims, as well as the New York City Human Rights Law disparate-impact claim. They disagreed about whether the jury or the court should decide the plaintiffs’ Title VII disparate-impact claim.
The Parties’ Positions
The plaintiffs argued that Congress directed the court to decide Title VII disparate-impact claims. The defendants argued that the jury should decide all relevant legal issues because the issues supporting the Title VII disparate-impact claim were included in the other claims. The defendants also argued that the jury’s findings would bind the court under the Seventh Amendment.
Ruling
The court ordered that the plaintiffs’ Title VII disparate-impact claim would be tried by the court. The jury would decide the plaintiffs’ Title VII disparate-treatment claims, New York City Human Rights Law disparate-treatment claims, and New York City Human Rights Law disparate-impact claim. The court would not rule on the Title VII disparate-impact claim until after the jury made its findings on the Title VII disparate-treatment claim.
Judge Analisa Torres also ruled that the parties did not have to submit witness affidavits because the Phase I jury would hear all the evidence, including testimony from all trial witnesses. The parties could submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law one week after the jury’s verdict.
Other Deadlines and Instructions
The order kept February 1, 2023, as the deadline for motions in limine, pretrial memoranda of law, and other required pretrial filings. Oppositions to motions in limine and pretrial memoranda were due February 22, 2023. The parties were required to provide hard copies of only exhibits and transcripts subject to objections by February 23, 2023, and the full set of exhibits and transcripts by May 2, 2023. The court stated that it had not ordered additional objections or oppositions concerning jury charges, jury instructions, verdict forms, or voir dire questions, and said it would order further briefing if needed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.