Anyone who uses CA employment discrimination cases to predict the outcome of a NY employment discrimination cases is . . . well let's just say they belong at NYLS.

Talk to any employment discrimination attorney worth their salt for confirmation. Employment discrimination cases are worth about 10x as much in CA as they are in NY.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=charney+(n.)

Is it really considered "discrimination" to express moral, religious, social or cultural objections to homosexual activities in the workplace? If so, can someone explain to me by what kind of distorted activist reasoning are "anti-discrimination" laws not a violation of the First Amendment?

I'm sure Korry is THRILLED by this troll who keeps attempting to argue that her alleged comments are no big whoop because "calling homosexuality unnatural is merely an expression of opinion."

I still think this is Korry trolling in her own favor, while working from home.

Hey, I think this guy is totally on to something. I mean, the first amendment... that's speech right? Well jeez, why should I get sued if I (via speech) express my desire to screw my secretary, or my dislike of black people?

6:07,

The First Amendment does not guarantee an unconditional right to free speech. There are times and places where speech is relatively protected and others where it is not. The workplace is an example of the latter.

Perhaps one could argue, contra "distorted activist reasoning," that antidiscrimination laws unduly burden free speech rights, but that doesn't seem particularly persuasive given that antidiscrimination laws only restrict speech to the extent it constitutes adverse employment action.

A right Charney is a pun on the english expression "a right charlie" ... translates as "a real f@%#wit"

" A Right Charlie": Noun. An idiot. From the cockney rhyming slang Charlie Ronce meaning 'ponce'. E.g."You made me look a right Charlie when you told everyone about me getting so drunk last night."

Hey, 5:43 pm! I didn't use a California case to "predict the outcome" of a NY case. I said it was an interesting coincidence that cases came out in two other states involving somewhat similar claims over the past few weeks. I also pointed out that the NYC ordinance, under which Charney is suing, differs from the laws in other states. No predictions here, just observations.

Professor, how does the NYCHRL differ from other jurisdictions? The 2005 amendment you cite has always struck me as quite odd and problematic. The Admin Code has generally been applied by the courts similarly to fed and state law, except where expressly different. The City Council in a pique passed that vague statement of "liberal interpretation," ostensibly detaching the Admin Code from all pre-2005 precedent, yet made no substantive changes in the law and provided no guidance to courts as to any different standards to be applied. Is the Admin Code "different" simply because the City Council announces that it is?

Professor,

Do you really think (1) allegations of months of sustained abuse in spite of complaints and (2) allegations of two crude comments by one individual with no alleged continuation of crude comments by that individual after a complaint are "somewhat similar claims"? Last night I tapped my wife on the shoulder with the remote control, which she didn't appreciate. Would you characterize that as "somewhat similar" to hitting her in the side of the head with a hammer? I guess that it is.

The city counsel is a legislative body. If it says that the code should be given a "liberal" interpretation, and adopts a broader interpretation of retaliation (spelling out in the amended code) than is generally followed in the federal and state courts, then courts interpreting and applying the city administrative code are supposed to adhere to that. I agree that there is quite a bit of ambiguity, and it is hard to predict how courts might react.

My initial reaction to reading Charney's complaint was that federal and most state courts would not find his allegations sufficient to meet the rather high standard for finding a hostile environment. But the city council has declared that those decisions should not be followed by courts applying the city's administrative code, leaving it open to speculation as to what a state court might do with Charney's allegations, should they be proven at trial.

Just as a state supreme court can declare that the state's due process clause is more protective of individual liberties than the identically worded federal due process clause, and a state court can declare its civil rights statute more protective of employee rights than the identically worded Title VII, presumably a court construing the city law can give it a broader reading in light of the command written into the code to give it a liberal construction and not be bound by the narrower construction embraced by federal or state courts. That's not to say that Charney necessarily has a winner, just to say that the legislative body that enacted the city code has signalled its disagreement with the way the law has been developing under similar federal and state laws.

"Somewhat similar claims" says nothing about the magnitude of the difference, and I indicated that the allegations of the two other cases were more severe than Charney's allegations.

I pointed to the two other cases as examples of how state courts in two other jurisdictions have handled workplace hostile envirnment claims by gay employees under laws that ban sexual orientation discrimination.

Now it's up to the lawyers involved on both sides in this case to try to figure out the potential settlement value of the case based on this combination of factors: the nature of Charney's allegations, the likelihood they can be proven, the imponderables of how a NY court may construe the administrative code in light of the 2005 amendment, the relative weight that might be given to the extensive body of caselaw under other statutes concerning hostile environment claims, what it would be worth to S&C to avoid submitting its partners to depositions or to actually litigating this case in an open courtroom. I'm sure that experienced employment litigators can readily add to this list of the factors to be considered by both sides in deciding how to go forward.

But meanwhile Justice Fried will be pondering S&C's motion to dismiss Charney's case, as soon as responsive pleadings are filed.

Typing fast on a blog does not give rise to accurate spelling. I meant to write "city council" on the prior post.

Typing fast on a blog does not give rise to accurate spelling. I meant to write "city council" on the prior post.

Does anybody know if Mr. Charney's lawyers are working by the hour or on contingency? I wonder. Does Mr. Alterman (his lead counsel right) often take cases on contingency?

If there are four people representing him either Charney has a lot of money stashed away or his lawyers have a lot of confidence in this case and can see the dollar signs.