Muniz v. The City of New York
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-09223
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Muniz v. City of New York, Judge Cronan ordered clarification about which defendants face certain employment claims before proceeding with summary judgment.
Johnny Muniz, the City of New York, and Deputy Inspector John Mastronardi.
What happened
In Muniz v. The City of New York, the City and Deputy Inspector John Mastronardi had asked the court to grant summary judgment on all of Johnny Muniz’s claims. The complaint contained nine causes of action, but several did not clearly identify which defendants were being sued.
The unclear claims included federal age-discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims, as well as New York State Human Rights Law claims against both defendants. The order also noted that the first claim referred to the defendants in the plural even though its title named only the City.
The court ordered Johnny Muniz to file a letter by August 22, 2023, clarifying which claims he intended to bring against each defendant. If he intended to sue John Mastronardi on any of those claims, Judge John P. Cronan ordered both sides to submit their views by August 29, 2023, on whether those claims could be brought against an individual defendant.
The detailed version
- Muniz v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-09223
- John Cronan
- Aug. 15, 2023
Background
The City of New York and Deputy Inspector John Mastronardi moved for summary judgment on all claims brought by Johnny Muniz. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the governing standard permits judgment based on the record. The opinion states that Muniz’s complaint contained nine causes of action.
The first cause of action alleged age discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act. Although its title identified the City as the defendant, the allegations referred to the defendants in the plural. The titles of the fourth and seventh causes of action, involving a hostile work environment and discrimination under federal law, also did not identify the defendants, while their allegations referred to the defendants in the plural. The second, fifth, and eighth causes of action alleged violations of the New York State Human Rights Law against both defendants.
Court’s Action
The court ordered Muniz to file a letter by August 22, 2023, clarifying whether he intended to bring the first, second, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth causes of action against both the City and Mastronardi and, if so, which causes of action. If Muniz intended to bring any of those claims against Mastronardi, the court ordered each side to provide its views by August 29, 2023, in letters of no more than five pages, on whether those claims could be brought against an individual defendant. The order did not decide the summary-judgment motion or the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.