hour policy offering pickup times that can vary by an hour; (iii) a 30-minute policy requiring users to wait 30 minutes beyond the scheduled time for a taxi authorization; and (iv) capacity constraints leading to untimely pickups, excessive travel times, and longer-than-necessary trips. The plaintiffs contended these issues resulted in unsafe waiting conditions and made it difficult for users to manage their schedules effectively, and that some users faced substantial delays, excessive wait times, and at times, were forced to use their own funds for alternative transportation. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the MTA to correct the issues. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part. The court determined that the ADA’s implementing regulations applied to the challenged next-day and one-hour policies, and therefore those claims could not proceed under the ADA. However, the court opined that the claims regarding the 30-minute policy and capacity constraints could proceed. The court noted that while the regulations set minimum standards, they did not necessarily represent “comparable” service to what was available to non-disabled individuals. The court also declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims under the Rehabilitation Act for the same claims. The court likewise found that the NYCHRL claims were not preempted by state law, and they adequately alleged violations that go beyond the ADA’s requirements. The NYCHRL requires more stringent accommodations, and the court found that the plaintiffs’ allegations warranted further consideration. For these reasons, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The court’s decision in Myers, et al. v. County Of Nassau, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139574 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2024), underscores the complexities of proving discrimination within systemic structures, particularly regarding the sufficiency of evidence to demonstrate discriminatory intent. The plaintiff, a Black NYPD officer, filed a class action against Nassau County, the Nassau County Civil Service Commission, and the Nassau County Police Department (NCPD) alleging that the NCPD’s post-exam phase of their hiring process was discriminatory on the basis of race, and violated the Equal Protection Clause under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part. First, the defendants argued the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the entire hiring process because he was disqualified at the background check stage. The plaintiff contended that the discriminatory practices affected all stages of the hiring process, not just one specific step, highlighting the discriminatory nature of the entire process. The court held that because the plaintiff only personally suffered injury as a result of the background check phase, the other steps of the hiring process did not sufficiently implicate the “same set of concerns” to give the plaintiff class standing for those steps. Id. at *13. Thus, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiff’s challenges of all other steps of the hiring process. The defendants further argued that the plaintiff failed to show discriminatory intent by the decision-makers, and that he could not prove Civil Service Commissioners knew his race or acted with racial bias. The plaintiff argued that evidence, including background check reports and application photos, indicated that racial information was available to the decision-makers. The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that his allegations sufficiently suggested the decision-makers knew his race and that he had provided adequate evidence of racial bias in the decision-making process. The defendants claimed the plaintiff did not adequately compare himself to similarly- situated individuals who were treated differently. The plaintiff alleged that his proposed comparators were hired despite having more serious background issues, while his less severe infractions led to him being disqualified which indicated discriminatory practices. The court found that the plaintiff presented sufficient facts to suggest that the white comparators’ circumstances bore a reasonably close resemblance to his own, allowing for an inference of discrimination. Accordingly, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Vale, et al. v. City Of Seattle, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108289 (W.D. Wash. June 18, 2024), addressed the legal ramifications of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for city employees. The plaintiffs, a group of 39 current or former fire department employees, filed a class action against the City of Seattle challenging the City’s August 9, 2021 directive requiring all City employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by October 18, 2021, unless granted a religious or medical exemption. Of these employees, 34 sought religious exemptions. Following the vaccine mandate, some plaintiffs retired, resigned, or were terminated, while others remained employed. The plaintiffs asserted ten causes of action, including violations of constitutional rights, such as procedural due process, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, discrimination, and wrongful termination. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it failed to meet the requirements of Rule 8, which requires a plaintiff’s claim for relief to be short and plain, largely challenging the length of the complaint and its attachments. The court rejected this argument. It explained that length and verbosity are not reasons to strike a complaint. The defendants also asserted that the allegations failed to state a valid claim. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in
12
© Duane Morris LLP 2025
Duane Morris Discrimination Class Action Review – 2025
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online