Case Digests

u.s. district

Court, wdny

Arbitration

Discrimination Claim

Brown v. St. Paul Travelers

Companies

06-CV-688C

Judge Curtin

Background: The plaintiff brought action alleging the defendant terminated her employment and discriminated against her based on her age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The defendant filed a motion seeking dismissal and an order compelling arbitration pursuant to Federal Rule C.P. 12(b) and the Federal Arbitration Act. An employee handbook contained language indicating arbitration would be mandatory. The plaintiff does not recall ever receiving the handbook.

Ruling: The court finds that language in the employee handbook to the effect that it does not create a contract of employment does not render the arbitration policy unenforceable. The defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and to compel arbitration is granted.

Josephine A. Greco of Offerman, Cassano, Greco & Slisz LLP for the plaintiff, and Robert Petrulis of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC for the defendant

Recusal

Frivolous Lawsuits

U.S. v. DePonceau

05-CR-6124L

Judge Larimer

Background: The defendant was indicted on firearms charges in 2005 and filed a pro se motion to recuse Judge Larimer. The motion sets out DePonceau's theory on various conspiracies on the part of numerous public officials whom he alleges have something to do with his case. The court notes the defendant has filed civil actions against President Bush, most judges of the Second Circuit and many private entities.

Ruling: Judge Larimer finds "no basis for this court to recuse itself since DePonceau has sued virtually every other judge within 100 miles of this courthouse and this motion appears to be little more than a misguided effort to remove this court from his criminal action, and perhaps preclude anyone else from handling the case either." The motion is denied.

Victor DePonceau, pro se, and Charles E. Moynihan, U.S. Attorney's Office, for the United States

First Amendment

Judicial Clarification

U.S. v. Nicolo

05-CR-6161L

Judge Larimer

Background: In this fraud prosecution, the court announced a decision in open court May 20 restricting contact with jurors concerning their deliberations. The Democrat & Chronicle newspaper moved to intervene in order to seek clarification and be heard on the issue.

Ruling: The motion is granted.

Jennifer C. Zegarelli of Der-Ohannesian & DerOhannesian for the defendant, Richard A. Resnick, U.S. Attorney's Office, and Christopher D. Thomas of Nixon Peabody LLP for the intervenor

Supremacy Clause

Legal Tender

Genesee Scrap & Tin Baling Co.

v. City of Rochester

07-CV-6359L

Judge Larimer

Background: The plaintiff brought action against the City of Rochester seeking a declaration by the court that a particular ordinance enacted by the city is unconstitutional. The plaintiff has moved for summary judgment. The May 2007 ordinance in question states no junkyard operator or scrap processor shall purchase or receive junk without first determining whether the junk is the property of the person giving it away, and that payments must be made by check. Among its contentions, the plaintiff argues the ordinance transgresses against Congress' power to coin money, the Supremacy Clause and New York UCC [section]2-511(2), which allows a seller to demand payment in legal tender.

Ruling: The motion is denied. The court notes that as an exercise of the city's police power, the ordinance carries a strong presumption of validity. The law must be sustained against a constitutional challenge so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. A check simply delays the receipt by the seller of legal tender and is done by way of a third party bank. The UCC provision specifies only that payment will not be deemed to have occurred until the seller receives cash from the buyer.

Paul R. Braunsdorf of Harris Beach LLP for the plaintiff, and John M. Campolieto, the City of Rochester, for the defendant

Equal Protection

Standing

Rodenhouse v. Palmyra-Macedon

Central School District

07-CV-6438

Judge Siragusa

Background: The plaintiffs' 17-year-old daughter was a student at the high school and participated in its athletic programs. A relationship between her and an assistant coach led to her moving out of the family home and into the home of the assistant coach and the head coach, who was the assistant's father. The plaintiff apparently became aware of certain strange behavior on the part of the coaches and reported it to other officials. The assistant coach evidently was involved with several other female students. When the school became aware of this, his employment ended; however, the head coach allowed his son to continue to assist at certain track meets. The coaches allegedly manipulated the daughter into falsely informing the Department of Social Services that her parents had banished her from the family home. The school district then terminated the employment of the head coach as well. The plaintiffs brought suit alleging due process, equal protection violations and negligent supervision. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss and moved for sanctions for what they believed were frivolous claims advanced by the plaintiffs.