Taylor v. City of New York

Nature of the order

This order memorialized rulings made during a pretrial conference on motions in limine, which are requests to control what evidence or arguments may be presented at trial. The order did not decide the underlying Title VII claim.

Claims proceeding to the jury

The court ruled that the only claim going to the jury was Taylor’s Title VII race-discrimination claim against the City of New York. The court stated that Title VII does not impose individual liability on Nancy A. Reilly, so the jury could not be instructed to find her liable under that statute.

The court also ruled that Taylor had no claims against Reilly or the City under the New York State Human Rights Law or the New York City Human Rights Law. The operative amended complaint asserted only federal claims. Taylor’s later filing labeled a second amended complaint was treated as a motion for permission to amend, and Taylor later declined to pursue that amendment. The court stated that the City was the only defendant remaining in the case and that the Title VII race-discrimination claim was the only claim.

Back pay, front pay, and hiring relief

The parties agreed that the jury would not determine economic damages consisting of back pay or front pay. If the jury finds the City liable under Title VII, the parties will proceed before the magistrate judge for a final determination of any back-pay or front-pay award, rather than a recommendation to another judge.

Taylor preferred an order requiring the Department of Sanitation to hire him instead of an award of front pay. The court reserved decision on whether to order the City to hire him. If it declines to order that relief, the magistrate judge will determine any front-pay amount and will address the City’s arguments that Taylor failed to reduce his losses, failed to produce evidence of lost income during discovery, and sought damages that would be too speculative.

Economic-damages expert

The court granted the City’s request to prevent Taylor from calling an expert on economic damages. Taylor, who had been represented by counsel since the end of 2020, first informed the defense on July 28, 2023 that he intended to call an expert about wage and pension losses. He still had not identified the expert in the parties’ August 7 pretrial submissions. The court found that Taylor should have disclosed the expert during the previously reopened and extended discovery period and that the late notice was prejudicial.

Emotional-distress damages

The court declined to prevent Taylor from seeking emotional-distress damages. Although the City argued that Taylor had not expressly requested those damages in either complaint, Taylor had been representing himself when he filed the amended complaint and had requested “unspecified monetary damages.” The court therefore read that pleading generously and allowed the emotional-distress claim for damages to proceed.

The court separately ruled that Taylor could not mention a specific dollar amount for emotional-distress damages in his opening statement. It reserved decision on whether he could request a specific amount at the end of trial.

Other evidence and arguments

The court ruled that Taylor could refer to defense counsel as the City’s attorneys. Because Reilly was out of the case, the court found no remaining issue concerning whether the City would indemnify her.

Taylor could introduce relevant evidence concerning his military service, including a form titled “Request To Withdraw Veterans Credits,” to the extent the evidence helped show that he was qualified for the sanitation-worker position and completed required forms. The court rejected the City’s position that the City could introduce or refer to Taylor’s military service while Taylor could not do so.

The court declined to preclude evidence about two purported white comparators whom Taylor believed had failed to complete Comprehensive Personnel Documents but were hired anyway. The court noted that Taylor had not offered enough information about those individuals at summary judgment to establish that they were similarly situated, but the Title VII claim survived without that evidence. Taylor agreed not to mention the purported comparators in his opening statement, and the court expected him to follow that commitment. If he testified about them, the City could challenge the reliability of his belief through cross-examination.

Disposition

The court memorialized the pretrial rulings described above, including allowing and restricting particular evidence, reserving certain damages questions, and preventing Taylor from calling an economic-damages expert. The court did not state a separate disposition such as dismissal of the case in this order.