Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC

Background

Kelvin Hunter was the executive producer of The Wendy Williams Show from the program’s beginning in 2008 until his termination in April 2019. The opinion states that Hunter was also the former husband of the show’s host, Wendy Williams. Hunter alleges that he was terminated because of his marital status in relation to Williams.

Hunter brought one claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, alleging unlawful termination based on marital status. Defendants argued that the law’s protection against marital-status discrimination does not cover a person’s marriage to a particular individual. The court previously denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The prior ruling concluded that the case depended on how “marital status” is interpreted under the New York City Human Rights Law. The court followed a First Department decision holding that the term may include whether two individuals are married to each other. Although the court disagreed with that decision’s reasoning, it concluded that it was required to follow it because Defendants had not shown persuasive evidence that New York’s highest court would reject it.

Interlocutory Appeal

Defendants sought certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which allows a district court to authorize an immediate appeal of an otherwise nonfinal order when the order involves a controlling legal question, there is substantial ground for disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the case. Hunter opposed certification.

The court found all three requirements satisfied. First, the controlling question was whether “marital status” under the New York City Human Rights Law includes an employee’s marital status in relation to another person. The parties agreed that this was a pure legal question and that reversal of the prior order would result in dismissal of the case.

Second, the court found substantial ground for disagreement because conflicting case law existed and the issue was one of first impression in the Second Circuit and the New York Court of Appeals. The court also concluded that an immediate appeal could materially advance the litigation because reversal would end the case, which involves one plaintiff and one cause of action.

The court further determined that the issue was a plausible candidate for certification by the Second Circuit to the New York Court of Appeals. The court noted that the state’s highest court had not addressed the issue, that the New York City Human Rights Law governs the rights of millions of New York City employees, and that resolving the issue could determine whether claims based on marital status in relation to another person are legally viable.

Stay of Proceedings

Defendants also requested a stay of the case pending the appeal. Hunter asked the court either to deny the stay or to limit it to the trial and allow discovery to continue.

In evaluating the stay, the court considered the likelihood of success, irreparable harm without a stay, potential injury to other parties, and the public interest. The court found that the first factor favored a stay because it had concluded that the statutory term did not encompass marital status in relation to another person, while also recognizing that the issue was suitable for possible certification. The court found that Defendants had not shown irreparable harm, making that factor weigh against a stay. The potential injury to other parties was neutral. The public-interest factor favored a stay because the appeal could resolve the case without discovery or additional motion practice.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion for a certificate for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). It also granted Defendants’ application for a stay pending appeal. The stay will automatically be lifted if no application for the Second Circuit to accept the interlocutory appeal is made within ten days, or if the Second Circuit denies that application. This order did not finally decide whether Hunter’s claim succeeds under the New York City Human Rights Law.