![]() Adm.Code § 8-107 et seq., as amended by the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 (“LCRRA”). In its opinion the court credited plaintiff's position that: the court properly instructed the jury with the proper statutory standard ( see New York City Human Rights Law § 8-107 ) to apply when considering whether defendants retaliated against plaintiffs by subjecting them to adverse employment actions after they engaged in protected activity. The court found that the defendants' reliance on the instruction was misplaced, because the allegedly biased liberal language was in the statute itself. In Sorrenti, supra, the defendants objected to the $491,706 as excessive and an alleged product of judicial bias evidenced by the court’s instruction to the jury under the City Law. 17, 2005.) In the present case, although plaintiff has clearly established her claims under the more restrictive state and federal standards, when possible, the court will conduct its analysis under the New York City Human Rights Law. 85 of City of New York § 1 Council Report of Governmental Affairs Div, Comm. Thus, the case law that has developed in interpreting both the state Human Rights Law and title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should merely serve as a base for the New York City Human Rights Law, not its ceiling. The Administrative Code's legislative history clearly contemplates that the New York City Human Rights Law be liberally and independently construed with the aim of making it the most progressive in the nation. ![]() Justice Acosta, a former Commissioner of the NYCCHR, explained that: n enacting the more protective Human Rights Law, the New York City Council has exercised a clear policy choice which this court is bound to honor. 1 Dept.), expressly in reliance on the liberal policies behind the City Law and the Restoration Act. Since the Restoration Act was passed in October 2005, two of the three courts sustaining large emotional distress award expressly relied on the intent of the City Council in passing the Restoration Act, in denying remititur motions.Ī $ 2 million compensatory damages award was sustained in Jordan v. 255 (2006)(The City Human Rights Law’s purposes are said to be not only uniquely broad, they are uniquely broad and remedial.” One of the core principles intended by the Council to guide decision makers is that “victims of discrimination suffer serious injuries, for which they ought to receive full compensation.” (quoting the 2005 Committee Report at 5)) See, e.g., A Return to Eyes on the Prize: Litigating Under the Restored New York City Human Rights Law,” 33 Fordham Urb. The legislative history of both acts makes plain that the City Council expressly chose to give plaintiffs more generous compensation for injuries than state or federal law. The City Law and the Restoration Act are unlike any other remedial statutes. ![]() Large Awards for Emotional Distress Under the City Law are Surviving Judicial Review ![]() ![]() Compensatory Damages, Punitive Damages and Remittitur under federal, NY State and NY City Law (First Part) ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |