Inner City Press





In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .



These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis
,



Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

CONTRIBUTE

(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro

BloggingHeads.tv
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka

VoA: NYCLU

FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"
 

 

 


Community
Reinvestment

Bank Beat

Freedom of Information
 

How to Contact Us



After Fireman Sued FDNY For Sexual Harassment Now City Seeks To Separate Its Case From Hazers

By Matthew Russell Lee, More on Patreon

SDNY COURTHOUSE, June 3 – The Federal case in which ex-firefighter Gordon Springs accused the FDNY, its Commissioner and three firemen of sexual harassment resulted on May 20 to an ill-attended conference in which the parties disputed which Federal Magistrate Judge would be best to try to bring the large gap between them for a settlement.

  U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Alison J. Nathan asked Springs' lawyer and then the defendants about the chances of settlement. Springs' new lawyer Paul Liggieri of L & D Law, P.C. replacing the Derek Smith Law Group said that his client acknowledges that his first demands were unreasonable, but said the City is now offering only "garden variety damages." The individual firemen's lawyer said his clients could contribute something but not much.

 Now on June 3 the City of New York is trying to sever itself from these individual defendants / hazers: "The City respectfully submits that it would be unduly prejudiced if faced with a trial in which a fact pattern of hazing, hostile work environment and discrimination, all facts that support claims that have been dismissed against the City, were presented against them. Indeed, on a motion in limine, the City would seek preclusion of most, if not all, evidence and testimony relating to plaintiff’s discrimination claims as such evidence would be unduly prejudicial to the City’s defense of plaintiff’s retaliation claims.

To keep these trials together would essentially force the City to into a dilemma: either ignore the evidence and testimony regarding the nonretaliation claims and risk a jury interpreting this silence as a concession; or address this evidence and thereby create the appearance that these non-retaliation claims apply to the City. This would very likely lead to jury confusion. It will be very difficult for the jury to be able to discern which of plaintiffs’ claims relate to a witness’s testimony. As a result, there is a distinct likelihood that the City may be held liable for claims that have been dismissed against it. This risk of undue prejudice to the City weighs heavily in favor of conducting separate trials." Will Judge Nathan grant it? Watch this site.

Back on May 20 after the round of answers Judge Nathan said "if the ocean of difference becomes a lake or river," then it made sense to return to the Magistrate judge for another settlement conference. 

But which Magistrate? Judge Nathan asked if Magistrate Judge Ona Wang had indicated she would be willing to try a second time. Both side said Yes. Then Li said he had had success with SDNY Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses.

  Judge Nathan said she had no power to reassign the case to another Magistrate. She again encouraged the parties to try to settle, to avoid the cost and risk of a trial.

SDNY courthouse

 (Magistrate Moses, later on May 20, was holding a settlement conference partially by telephone in another case, Charlestown Capital Advisers, LCC v. Acero Junction, Inc. et al., 18-cv-4437, assigned to her by Judge John G. Koeltl).

  The FDNY case, still with an ocean of difference between the parties as Judge Nathan put it, is Gordon Springs v. The City of New York, et al., 17-cv-451 (Nathan).

***

Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com

Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540



Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2019 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com for