Adams-Flores v. City of New York

Background

Nichole Adams-Flores brought employment-retaliation claims against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Corrections (DOC), and DOC Commissioner Cynthia Brann under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court stated that three retaliation claims remained for trial. In advance of the scheduled trial, the defendants filed fourteen motions in limine—pretrial requests to limit evidence—and Adams-Flores filed one motion.

Rulings on the Defendants’ Motions

1. Motion 1: Michael J. Vernarelli’s expert report and testimony — granted. The court excluded the report and testimony because the report calculated economic losses from an alleged pay disparity and did not address the categories of damages relevant to the remaining retaliation claims, including loss of civil service title and termination-related losses. The court also denied Adams-Flores’s request to submit a supplemental or updated report. The court treated that request as an attempt to submit a new report after the opportunities to do so had passed.

2. Motion 2: Evidence concerning backpay, front pay, and punitive damages — denied. The court allowed evidence concerning backpay and front pay, stating that the defendants’ request improperly sought another decision on issues previously addressed at summary judgment. Whether Adams-Flores obtained comparable employment was left for the jury. The court also stated that punitive damages could be sought from Brann, although Adams-Flores implicitly conceded that punitive damages were unavailable from the City and its agencies.

3. Motion 3: Statements by Martin Murphy or Jeff Thamkittikasem — denied as moot. Adams-Flores said she did not intend to offer evidence or testimony about the statements.

4. Motion 4: Evidence that Adams-Flores was directed to falsify data at DOC — denied. The court found the evidence relevant to her argument that she was asked to compromise the integrity of her role to create a false justification for her termination. The ruling was without prejudice to particularized objections at trial.

5. Motion 5: Evidence about unauthorized research on DOC inmates — granted. The court granted the motion as unopposed because Adams-Flores did not make an argument opposing it.

6. Motion 6: Evidence that Adams-Flores was or is a victim of domestic violence — granted. The court found the evidence irrelevant to the retaliation claims allowed for trial. It also concluded that any limited relevance was outweighed by the danger that the jury would be unfairly influenced by sympathy.

7. Motion 7: Testimony by Alexis Kelly Jones, Jerez Hue, and Bruce Farbstein — granted in part and denied in part. The court excluded the testimony of Jones and Hue because Adams-Flores failed to disclose them, did not adequately explain the failure, did not show that their testimony was important, and had not requested a continuance. The court allowed Farbstein to testify because his testimony was needed to lay the foundation for Exhibit 22 and the defendants had deposed him more than two years before trial.

8. Motion 8: Testimony by Ayinde Williams, Danielle Barrett, and Claudette Wynter — partially resolved, with judgment reserved in part. The court denied the motion as to Barrett because her testimony was relevant to introducing Exhibit 12. The court stated that it was inclined to exclude Williams’s and Wynter’s testimony as cumulative but reserved judgment until the pretrial conference, where Adams-Flores was to explain why their testimony would not cause undue delay, waste time, or needlessly repeat other evidence.

9. Motion 9: Character evidence concerning Brann and non-party witnesses — denied without prejudice. The court found the motion too vague because the defendants did not identify the particular evidence they wanted excluded. The defendants could make specific objections at trial.

10. Motion 10: References to defense counsel as “City Attorneys” and evidence of indemnification — denied as moot. Adams-Flores agreed to use other descriptions for defense counsel and not to offer indemnification evidence, subject to a condition concerning evidence of Brann’s personal financial resources. The court stated that, unless it ordered otherwise, the defendants could not offer evidence of Brann’s personal financial resources or ability to pay punitive damages.

11. Motion 11: Exhibits 12 and 22 — granted in part and denied in part. The court allowed Exhibit 12, an EEO Complaint Final Investigative Report, for at least the limited purpose of showing that the defendants conducted an internal investigation into Adams-Flores’s retaliation complaints. The parties were directed to confer about redactions because only portions of the report appeared relevant. The court did not preclude Exhibit 22 in light of its ruling on backpay and front pay.

12. Motion 12: Exhibits 12 and 13 — granted. Exhibit 12 was to be limited through redactions to portions relevant to the remaining retaliation claims. Exhibit 13, which concerned other deputy commissioners’ salaries, and testimony from Ross McDonald and Patsy Yang were excluded as irrelevant or, at most, substantially outweighed by risks of confusion, misleading the jury, and wasting time.

13. Motion 13: Requesting a specific damages amount from the jury — granted. The court prohibited Adams-Flores from asking the jury for a specific dollar amount in damages, citing the risk that such a request would improperly anchor the jury’s expectations.

14. Motion 14: Expert testimony from Adams-Flores’s treating health care providers — denied as moot. Adams-Flores stated that she would not present the providers as experts. The court left open objections at trial if she sought to elicit improper expert testimony or present them as experts.

Plaintiff’s Motion

Adams-Flores moved to exclude testimony by Dana Roth, a Department of Investigation report, and a Conflicts of Interest Board disposition. The court denied the motion, substantially for the reasons given in the defendants’ opposition. It stated that the evidence was central to the defense, that the board disposition was not hearsay because it was a statement made or adopted by Adams-Flores, and that the investigation report was admissible at least for a purpose other than proving the truth of its contents.

Disposition and Significance

The court summarized the rulings as follows: Defendants’ Motions 1, 5, 6, 12, and 13 were granted; Motions 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, and 14, and Adams-Flores’s motion, were denied; Motions 7 and 11 were granted in part and denied in part; and judgment was reserved in part on Motion 8. The order terminated the pending motion entries but did not resolve the underlying retaliation claims.