NY State Senate Bill 2021-S5493

Archive: Last Bill Status - In Senate Committee Judiciary Committee

Introduced
- In Committee Assembly
- In Committee Senate
- On Floor Calendar Assembly
- On Floor Calendar Senate
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
Delivered to Governor
Signed By Governor

Please enter your contact information

First Name

Last Name

Email Address

A valid email address is required.

Home address is used to determine the senate district in which you reside. Your support or opposition to this bill is then shared immediately with the senator who represents you.

Optional services from the NY State Senate:

Create an account. An account allows you to officially support or oppose key legislation, sign petitions with a single click, and follow issues, committees, and bills that matter to you. When you create an account, you agree to this platform's terms of participation.

Include a custom message for your Senator? (Optional)

Enter a message to your senator. Many New Yorkers use this to share the reasoning behind their support or opposition to the bill. Others might share a personal anecdote about how the bill would affect them or people they care about.

Actions

View Actions

	Assembly Actions - Lowercase Senate Actions - UPPERCASE
Jan 05, 2022	referred to judiciary
Mar 09, 2021	referred to judiciary

co-Sponsors

View additional co-sponsors

2021-S5493 (ACTIVE) - Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:: A8282
Current Committee:: Senate Judiciary
Law Section:: Civil Practice Law and Rules
Laws Affected:: Amd R4404, §5501, CPLR; amd §297, Exec L
Versions Introduced in 2023-2024 Legislative Session:: S17, A2865

2021-S5493 (ACTIVE) - Summary

Provides that the court shall not reduce jury awards as excessive in employment discrimination actions unless the court finds that the proponent has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the verdict compels the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.

2021-S5493 (ACTIVE) - Sponsor Memo

                                
 
BILL NUMBER: S5493

SPONSOR: GOUNARDES
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the civil practice law and rules and the executive law,
in relation to jury awards for unlawful discriminatory practices relat-
ing to employment

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

To limit the circumstances in which a judge can significantly alter jury
awards in civil employment discrimination cases

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section one of this bill amends subdivision (a) of Rule 4404 of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), which provides the circumstances
and process by which a judge may set aside a jury's verdict or order a
new trial in civil judicial proceedings. Section one prescribes that a
judge may not order a new trial or otherwise act to reduce a jury award

in employment discrimination cases under Executive Law § 296 without
fully satisfying the standards set forth in sections two and three of
the bill.

Section two of this bill amends subdivision c of Section 5501 of CPLR
which describes the scope and jurisdiction of the New York State Supreme
Court Appellate Division. Section two provides that an appellate court
may not deviate from a jury verdict unless it can find by clear and
convincing evidence that the verdict compels the conclusion that the
jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption and
that remittitur or additur is necessary to avoid a total miscarriage of
justice. The jury's verdict is presumed to be correct absent this
evidence and the court shall not limit any award using characterization
of other similar damage awards. The court shall not be bound by prece-
dent or a judge's personal knowledge or experience from prior cases. The
court shall exercise its authority to order a remittitur or additur in
only the most exceptional of circumstances.

Section three of this bill amends subdivision 9 of section 297 of the
Executive Law which provides a cause of action for employees suffering
discrimination under the state's Human Rights Law (Article 15 of the
Executive Law). Section three provides that a jury award of damages for
employment discrimination shall not be subject to a remittitur or addi-
tur unless the party seeking such change demonstrates by clear and
convincing evidence that the jury was influenced by partiality, preju-
dice, mistake or corruption and that a remittitur or additur is neces-
sary to avoid a complete miscarriage of justice. A jury award is
presumed to be correct and entitled to substantial deference and the
court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury's. The court
shall not limit any award using characterization of other similar damage
awards or bound by precedent which utilized the concept of material
deviation from what would be reasonable compensation.

The last sentence of this section says that this provision is substan-
tive in nature, as opposed to procedural, meaning that it should apply
in both state-level courts and federal courts which may decide certain
employment discrimination cases based on diversity jurisdiction. When
this happens, federal judges are asked to reduce verdicts based on state
law causes of action, so this language is meant to clarify that this
higher standard for remittiturs/additurs should be substantively applied
to all courts and is not a mere procedural matter, which can be easily
disregarded in favor of federal law.

Section four of this bill provides an immediate effective date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

Judges in civil judicial proceedings in New York state are empowered to
overrule and reduce jury awards (known as a remittitur) or increase them
(known as an additur) if they believe that the jury has erred in any way
in its estimation of what a plaintiff is owed. In cases of employment
discrimination brought under Executive Law § 296 (the Human Rights Law),
these awards frequently take the form of emotional distress and punitive
damages which will deter defendant and other employers from allowing
harassment in the workplace to go unchecked.

Judges in New York have begun to generically sort claims under § 296,
however, into certain categories based on details about the case and
defendant, relying heavily on prior case law. A case in which a plain-
tiff has not received medical treatment might be labeled as "garden
variety" and assigned a value of $125,000 or $50,000 or less, no matter
what the jury awarded the plaintiff, where a case involving an "interme-
diate" level of emotional distress gets more. These categories, which
have no basis in medical or sociological fact, are simply a result of
judges looking at prior damages of "similar" cases of employment
discrimination. Routinely resulting in reductions of tens if not
hundreds of thousands of dollars, these decisions serve to undermine
juries and public confidence in the civil court system by overturning
jury verdicts for seemingly no valid reason.  This bill would amend the
law to establish a higher standard for remittiturs and additurs in cases
involving unlawful discrimination relating to employment under Executive
Law § 296. It provides that a court may not overturn a jury's verdict
unless it finds that a proponent has proven by clear and convincing
evidence that the jury was influenced by impartiality, prejudice,
mistake or corruption and that a remittitur or additur is necessary to
avoid a complete miscarriage of justice. The court may not categorize
awards based on similar characteristics of other damage awards or be
bound by judicial precedent when considering whether or not to alter a
jury award. A jury verdict is presumed to be correct and entitled to
substantial deference, and a court must give primary consideration to
the remedial purpose of the law.

It is the sponsor's hope that these reforms will curb the arbitrary
categorization and reduction of emotional distress and punitive damages
for victims of workplace harassment so that perpetrators of this abusive
behavior are held fully accountable for their actions and victims
receive the justice they deserve.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

None

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediate

2021-S5493 (ACTIVE) - Bill Text download pdf

                            
 
                     S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                   5493
 
                        2021-2022 Regular Sessions
 
                             I N  S E N A T E
 
                               March 9, 2021
                                ___________
 
 Introduced by Sen. GOUNARDES -- read twice and ordered printed, and when
   printed to be committed to the Committee on Judiciary
 
 AN  ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules and the executive law,
   in relation to  jury  awards  for  unlawful  discriminatory  practices
   relating to employment

   THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
 
   Section 1. Subdivision (a) of rule 4404 of the civil practice law  and
 rules,  such  rule  as renumbered by chapter 315 of the laws of 1962, is
 amended to read as follows:
   (a) Motion after trial where jury required. After a trial of  a  cause
 of  action  or  issue triable of right by a jury, upon the motion of any
 party or on its own initiative, the court may set aside a verdict or any
 judgment entered thereon and direct that judgment be entered in favor of
 a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law or it may  order  a  new
 trial  of  a  cause  of  action  or separable issue where the verdict is
 contrary to the weight of the evidence, in the interest  of  justice  or
 where  the jury cannot agree after being kept together for as long as is
 deemed reasonable by the court. NO COURT SHALL ORDER A NEW TRIAL ON  THE
 GROUND THAT THE JURY AWARD WAS EXCESSIVE, OR OTHERWISE ACT TO REDUCE THE
 JURY'S  AWARD  IN  A  CASE INVOLVING AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE
 UNDER SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE  LAW  RELATING  TO
 EMPLOYMENT,  INCLUDING  A  CLAIM  BY  A  NON-EMPLOYEE  UNDER SECTION TWO
 HUNDRED NINETY-SIX-D OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, WITHOUT FULLY SATISFYING  THE
 PERTINENT  STANDARDS  SET  FORTH  IN PARAGRAPH TWO OF SUBDIVISION (C) OF
 SECTION FIFTY-FIVE HUNDRED ONE OF THIS  CHAPTER  AND  PARAGRAPH  (B)  OF
 SUBDIVISION  NINE  OF  SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN OF THE EXECUTIVE
 LAW.
   § 2. Subdivision (c) of section 5501 of the  civil  practice  law  and
 rules, as amended by chapter 474 of the laws of 1997, is amended to read
 as follows:
 
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.

                                                            LBD10273-03-1

 S. 5493                             2
 
   (c)  Appellate  division. 1. The appellate division shall review ques-
 tions of law and questions of fact on an appeal from a judgment or order
 of a court of original instance and on an appeal from an  order  of  the
 supreme  court,  a  county  court  or  an  appellate term determining an
 appeal.   The notice of appeal from an order directing summary judgment,
 or directing judgment on a motion addressed to the pleadings,  shall  be
 deemed  to  specify  a judgment upon said order entered after service of
 the notice of appeal and before entry of  the  order  of  the  appellate
 court  upon such appeal, without however affecting the taxation of costs
 upon the appeal.  In reviewing a money judgment in an action in which an
 itemized verdict is required by rule forty-one hundred  eleven  of  this
 chapter  in  which it is contended that the award is excessive or inade-
 quate and that a new trial should have been granted unless a stipulation
 is entered to a different award, the appellate division shall  determine
 that  an award is excessive or inadequate if it deviates materially from
 what would be reasonable compensation.
   2. WHERE AN AWARD IS MADE BY A JURY FOR ANY DAMAGES IN A CASE  INVOLV-
 ING  AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE UNDER SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINE-
 TY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING A CLAIM BY
 A NON-EMPLOYEE UNDER SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX-D OF  THE  EXECUTIVE
 LAW,  THE  JURY'S  VERDICT  IS  PRESUMED  TO  BE CORRECT AND ENTITLED TO
 SUBSTANTIAL DEFERENCE. ANY SUCH AWARD SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED UNLESS  THE
 COURT  FINDS  THAT  THE  PROPONENT  HAS  PROVEN  BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING
 EVIDENCE THAT THE VERDICT COMPELS  THE  CONCLUSION  THAT  THE  JURY  WAS
 INFLUENCED BY PARTIALITY, PREJUDICE, MISTAKE OR CORRUPTION, AND REMITTI-
 TUR  OR ADDITUR IS NECESSARY TO AVOID A COMPLETE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
 IN MAKING SUCH DETERMINATION, THE COURT SHALL NOT SUBSTITUTE  ITS  JUDG-
 MENT  FOR  THE JURY'S, SHALL GIVE PRIMARY WEIGHT TO THE REMEDIAL PURPOSE
 OF THE LAW, AND SHALL NOT LIMIT ANY AWARD BY INCLUSION IN  OR  EXCLUSION
 FROM  ANY  CATEGORY  OF  CASE OR BY USING ANY CHARACTERIZATIONS OF OTHER
 DAMAGE AWARDS. IN REVIEWING ANY SUCH VERDICT IN ANY CASE FILED AFTER THE
 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS PARAGRAPH, THE COURT SHALL NOT BE  BOUND  BY  ANY
 PRECEDENT  WHICH  UTILIZED  THE  CONCEPT OF MATERIAL DEVIATION FROM WHAT
 WOULD BE REASONABLE COMPENSATION, OR A  JUDGE'S  PERSONAL  KNOWLEDGE  OR
 EXPERIENCES  FROM  PRIOR  CASES.  THE  EVIDENCE SHALL BE REVIEWED IN THE
 LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO SUSTAINING THE VERDICT. A COURT SHOULD  EXERCISE
 ITS  AUTHORITY  TO ORDER A REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR ONLY IN THE MOST EXCEP-
 TIONAL OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
   § 3. Subdivision 9 of section 297 of the executive law, as  separately
 amended  by  chapter 160 of the laws of 2019 and chapter 236 of the laws
 of 2020, is amended to read as follows:
   9. (A) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful  discrimina-
 tory  practice  shall have a cause of action in any court of appropriate
 jurisdiction for damages, including, in cases  of  employment  discrimi-
 nation  related  to  private  employers and housing discrimination only,
 punitive damages, and such other remedies as may be appropriate, includ-
 ing any civil fines and penalties provided in subdivision four  of  this
 section,  unless such person had filed a complaint hereunder or with any
 local commission on human rights, or with the superintendent pursuant to
 the provisions of section two hundred  ninety-six-a  of  this  [chapter]
 ARTICLE,  provided that, where the division has dismissed such complaint
 on the grounds of administrative convenience, on the grounds of  untime-
 liness,  or  on  the  grounds that the election of remedies is annulled,
 such person shall maintain all rights to bring suit as if  no  complaint
 had  been filed with the division. At any time prior to a hearing before
 a hearing examiner, a person who has a complaint pending at the division

 S. 5493                             3
 
 may request that the division dismiss the complaint and annul his or her
 election of remedies so that the human rights law claim may  be  pursued
 in court, and the division may, upon such request, dismiss the complaint
 on  the  grounds that such person's election of an administrative remedy
 is annulled. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of section two hundred four
 of the civil practice law and rules, if a complaint is  so  annulled  by
 the  division,  upon  the  request  of the party bringing such complaint
 before the division, such party's rights to bring such cause  of  action
 before a court of appropriate jurisdiction shall be limited by the stat-
 ute of limitations in effect in such court at the time the complaint was
 initially filed with the division. Any party to a housing discrimination
 complaint  shall  have the right within twenty days following a determi-
 nation of probable cause pursuant to subdivision two of this section  to
 elect  to  have  an  action  commenced in a civil court, and an attorney
 representing the division of human rights will be appointed  to  present
 the  complaint  in court, or, with the consent of the division, the case
 may be presented by complainant's attorney. A  complaint  filed  by  the
 equal  employment opportunity commission to comply with the requirements
 of 42 USC 2000e-5(c) and 42 USC 12117(a) and 29  USC  633(b)  shall  not
 constitute the filing of a complaint within the meaning of this subdivi-
 sion.  No  person  who  has initiated any action in a court of competent
 jurisdiction or who has an  action  pending  before  any  administrative
 agency under any other law of the state based upon an act which would be
 an  unlawful  discriminatory  practice  under  this  article, may file a
 complaint with respect to the same grievance under this section or under
 section two hundred ninety-six-a of this article. In  cases  of  housing
 discrimination  only, a person whose complaint has been dismissed by the
 division after investigation for lack of jurisdiction or lack of  proba-
 ble  cause  may  file the same cause of action in a court of appropriate
 jurisdiction pursuant to this section, unless judicial  review  of  such
 dismissal  has  been sought pursuant to section two hundred ninety-eight
 of this article.
   (B) A VERDICT INVOLVING  AN  UNLAWFUL  DISCRIMINATORY  PRACTICE  UNDER
 SECTION  TWO  HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THIS ARTICLE RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT,
 INCLUDING A CLAIM BY A NON-EMPLOYEE UNDER SECTION  TWO  HUNDRED  NINETY-
 SIX-D OF THIS ARTICLE, SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR, OR
 GRANTING  OF  A  MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE VERDICT WAS
 EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE, OR OTHERWISE REDUCED OR INCREASED,  UNLESS  THE
 COURT  FINDS  THAT  THE  PARTY  SEEKING REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR HAS MADE A
 CLEAR AND CONVINCING SHOWING THAT COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT  THE  JURY
 WAS  INFLUENCED BY PARTIALITY, PREJUDICE, MISTAKE OR CORRUPTION AND THAT
 REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR IS NECESSARY TO AVOID A  COMPLETE  MISCARRIAGE  OF
 JUSTICE.  IN MAKING SUCH DETERMINATION, A JURY VERDICT SHALL BE PRESUMED
 TO BE CORRECT AND ENTITLED TO SUBSTANTIAL DEFERENCE. THE COURT SHALL NOT
 SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THE JURY'S, SHALL GIVE PRIMARY WEIGHT TO THE
 REMEDIAL PURPOSE OF THE LAW, AND SHALL NOT LIMIT ANY AWARD BY  INCLUSION
 IN  OR  EXCLUSION  FROM ANY CATEGORY OF CASE OR ANY CHARACTERIZATIONS OF
 OTHER DAMAGE AWARDS. IN REVIEWING ANY VERDICT IN ANY  CASE  FILED  AFTER
 THE  EFFECTIVE  DATE  OF THIS PARAGRAPH, THE COURT SHALL NOT BE BOUND BY
 ANY PRECEDENT WHICH UTILIZED THE CONCEPT OF MATERIAL DEVIATION FROM WHAT
 WOULD BE REASONABLE COMPENSATION. A COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS  AUTHORITY
 TO ORDER A REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR ONLY IN THE MOST EXCEPTIONAL OF CIRCUM-
 STANCES.  THIS  PROVISION IS SUBSTANTIVE IN NATURE, AS OPPOSED TO PROCE-
 DURAL, AND SHALL BE SO APPLIED IN ANY EMPLOYMENT  DISCRIMINATION  ACTION
 UNDER THIS ARTICLE, REGARDLESS OF FORUM.
   § 4. This act shall take effect immediately.

Comments

Open Legislation is a forum for New York State legislation. All comments are subject to review and community moderation is encouraged.

Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity, hate or toxic speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Attempts to intimidate and silence contributors or deliberately deceive the public, including excessive or extraneous posting/posts, or coordinated activity, are prohibited and may result in the temporary or permanent banning of the user. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday. By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.

Create an account. An account allows you to sign petitions with a single click, officially support or oppose key legislation, and follow issues, committees, and bills that matter to you. When you create an account, you agree to this platform's terms of participation.

Senate Bill S5493

Sponsored By

Archive: Last Bill Status - In Senate Committee Judiciary Committee

co-Sponsors

2021-S5493 (ACTIVE) - Details

2021-S5493 (ACTIVE) - Summary

2021-S5493 (ACTIVE) - Sponsor Memo

2021-S5493 (ACTIVE) - Bill Text download pdf

Comments

Senate Bill S5493

Share this bill

Sponsored By

Archive: Last Bill Status - In Senate Committee Judiciary Committee

co-Sponsors

2021-S5493 (ACTIVE) - Details

2021-S5493 (ACTIVE) - Summary

2021-S5493 (ACTIVE) - Sponsor Memo

2021-S5493 (ACTIVE) - Bill Text download pdf

Comments