Pitre v. The City Of New York

Background

Edward Pitre, a former New York City Fire Department employee, sued the City of New York, Jan Borodo, Joseph M. Mastropietro, and the late John Fiorentino. He asserted claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged race discrimination and retaliation for filing an earlier lawsuit, and he claimed that he was unlawfully denied medical leave and reasonable accommodations for a disability.

The case was being tried before a jury. On the fourth day of trial, January 22, 2024, the court dismissed the action in the interest of justice. The memorandum explained the reasons for that dismissal and stated that the court had not dismissed the case by granting judgment as a matter of law.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court found that Pitre had attempted to commit a fraud on the court. Pitre testified that he had fallen while getting out of a Fire Department utility vehicle on February 27, 2015. During cross-examination, however, he admitted that he had previously filed a state-court personal-injury lawsuit based on the same alleged fall. That earlier complaint alleged that he had slipped and fallen while walking at the premises of J&F Meat Market; it did not mention a Fire Department vehicle. The earlier case sought damages for injuries, lost earnings, and other losses, and the state-court docket showed that the case had settled.

Pitre had not disclosed the earlier lawsuit, its settlement, or the money he received from it to the defendants in this case. When asked about income related to his injury, he identified workers’ compensation, a pension, disability payments, and Social Security, but denied receiving any other income. The court found that answer false because Pitre had received money from the earlier settlement. It also noted that a person generally cannot recover twice for the same injury.

The court separately described extensive failures by Pitre’s lawyers before and during trial. It found that Pitre had not properly produced relevant documents, had not adequately disclosed damages or witness subjects, and had provided an inadequate damages calculation. The court had previously excluded some damages evidence, including evidence of lost pension income. During trial, Pitre’s lawyers arrived late, submitted materials late or improperly, failed to conduct timely legal research, made numerous improper or withdrawn questions, and caused delays. One of Pitre’s lawyers moved for a mistrial based on lead counsel’s conduct, but the court did not grant that request.

The court also cited problems with the evidence. It described testimony by some of Pitre’s witnesses as inconsistent or apparently untruthful. It found little admissible evidence that race or Pitre’s earlier lawsuit influenced employment decisions. It also found no sufficient proof that Pitre was eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, including no evidence showing that he had worked the required 1,250 hours during the relevant period. Pitre offered no medical records or testimony from a medical provider to establish the claimed serious health condition or disability. The court further found no evidence that Borodo or Mastropietro personally discriminated against or retaliated against Pitre or otherwise violated his rights.

Court’s Ruling

The court held that dismissal was warranted as an extraordinary sanction because Pitre’s conduct and his lawyers’ conduct were inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice. The dismissal was based primarily on the court’s finding that Pitre attempted to commit a fraud on the court, along with the poor lawyering and the lack of evidence supporting his claims. The court did not state in this memorandum that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice.

Before entering judgment, the court gave Pitre and his lawyers an additional opportunity to seek reconsideration. Any reconsideration motion, and any defense motion for sanctions, was due February 16, 2024; opposition papers were due March 1, 2024; and reply papers were due March 8, 2024.