Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-08423
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC, Judge Woods denied reconsideration of summary judgment on a New York City discrimination claim against Melissa Romanino, sending it to trial.
After Sanderson’s direct individual-liability discrimination claim against Melissa Romanino under the New York City Human Rights Law will proceed to trial. Defendants’ summary-judgment motion was denied as to that claim, while the previously surviving aiding-and-abetting claim also remains.
What happened
In Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC, the court revisited an earlier decision about After Sanderson’s discrimination claim against Melissa Romanino under the New York City Human Rights Law. The earlier decision had allowed an aiding-and-abetting claim to continue but granted summary judgment against a separate claim holding Romanino directly responsible for discrimination.
The court explained that the New York City law allows an employee to be sued directly for discriminatory acts, even without business ownership or authority to hire, discipline, or fire employees. It concluded that its earlier ruling had incorrectly applied a narrower standard from a different New York law.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the direct individual-liability claim against Romanino. That claim will be tried, along with the previously surviving aiding-and-abetting claim.
The detailed version
- Sanderson v. Leg Apparel LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08423
- Gregory Woods
- Nov. 20, 2023
Background
Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of After Sanderson’s claims. Summary judgment is a decision made without a trial when the court determines that the relevant facts do not require a trial on a claim. On March 31, 2023, the court granted that motion in part and denied it in part.
As to Melissa Romanino, the earlier ruling denied summary judgment on a claim that she aided and abetted discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). It granted summary judgment on a separate claim alleging that Romanino was directly liable under the NYCHRL. The present order reconsidered that part of the earlier, non-final ruling.
Reasoning
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 permits a district court to revise an order that adjudicates fewer than all claims or parties before final judgment. The court explained that it had discretion to reconsider its partial summary-judgment ruling because that ruling was interlocutory, meaning it was not yet final.
The earlier ruling had reasoned that an individual could be liable as an employer under the New York State Human Rights Law only if the person owned part of the organization or had authority beyond carrying out decisions made by others, such as the power to hire or fire. The court had applied that reasoning to Romanino because she had stated that she lacked authority to hire, discipline, or fire employees.
The court concluded that this analysis was incorrect under the NYCHRL. The NYCHRL covers discrimination by an employer or an employee or agent of an employer, and New York City law requires the statute to be interpreted broadly to serve its remedial purposes. The court therefore held that the NYCHRL permits direct claims against individual employees for their discriminatory acts regardless of ownership or decision-making authority.
Ruling and effect
The court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the direct individual-liability claim against Romanino. The claim will be tried. The court stated that the claim substantially overlaps with the aiding-and-abetting claim that had already survived summary judgment and did not expect the ruling to change significantly the evidence presented at trial. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Plaintiff.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.