Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC

Background

Aftern Sanderson moved for reconsideration of one aspect of the court’s March 31, 2023 summary-judgment decision. Sanderson challenged the court’s determination that an alleged statement by his colleague Kayla Coppola was hearsay and could not be considered at the summary-judgment stage. The opinion refers readers to the earlier summary-judgment decision for the fuller factual history.

The earlier decision allowed Sanderson’s New York City Human Rights Law discrimination claim to proceed to trial. It granted summary judgment on Sanderson’s New York State Human Rights Law and Title VII discrimination claims. The court stated that it doubted, without deciding the issue, that considering Coppola’s alleged statement would have changed those substantive conclusions.

Reasons for the Decision

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. Sanderson’s motion was untimely. Local Rule 6.3 allowed 14 days to seek reconsideration of the order, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provided a 28-day period to seek alteration or amendment of a judgment. Sanderson filed the motion 60 days after the summary-judgment decision, so the court denied it as untimely.

The court separately concluded that the motion would fail even if the deadline were disregarded. It described the alleged statement as double hearsay: the first layer was Coppola’s alleged statement to Sanderson’s colleague Vincent Doggett, and the second was Doggett’s later report of that statement to Sanderson. As a result, Sanderson had personal knowledge that Doggett relayed the statement, but not personal knowledge that Coppola actually made it. Sanderson identified no hearsay exception that would permit the statement’s use, and the court identified none independently.

The court also rejected Sanderson’s argument that the defendants had accepted the statement as true by referring to it in litigation documents. The court found that one cited statement was Sanderson’s own statement, another concerned statements by former manager Melissa Romanino rather than Coppola, and the defendants’ other references responded to Sanderson’s allegation without admitting that Coppola had made the statement.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Sanderson’s motion for reconsideration. The court also stated that Sanderson remained free to seek appropriate witness testimony or make an appropriate motion at or before trial, but he had not identified a procedural basis for requiring a particular witness to participate at that point. Finally, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion also noted that there was no pending request for the court to act on a separate issue concerning the defendants’ alleged effort to obtain Sanderson’s protected health information.