U.S. District Court, Western District of N.Y. Case Summaries: August

Daily Record (Rochester, NY), Aug 18, 2008

U.S. District Court, Western District of N.Y.

Job Discrimination

Retaliation

Walker v. University of Rochester

04-CV-6482

Judge Telesca

Background: The plaintiff, an employee of Strong Memorial Hospital, claims she was discriminated against by her employer on the basis of race. The plaintiff is African-American and contends the defendant retaliated against her for complaining of racial discrimination after he refused to place her in temporary secretarial positions. The plaintiff's claim of having been subjected to discrimination while assigned to the University's Laser Lab prompted the lawsuit. The defendant denies the plaintiff's allegations and moves for summary judgment. The defendant further contends that, even if the plaintiff has stated a prima facie case of race discrimination, she has failed to rebut the defendant's legitimate non-discriminatory reason for not placing her in more temporary secretarial positions.

Ruling: The defendant provided evidence that five other senior secretaries, who did not file discrimination charges against the defendant, also went several months without an assignment during the same time period. The defendant sets forth evidence showing the plaintiff was not hired by the departments to which she was referred because she was less qualified than other candidates. The defendant stated a legitimate reason for the employment actions and the plaintiff has not shown that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the defendant's proposed reasons for not placing her in more temporary secretarial positions. Summary judgment is granted in favor of the defendant dismissing the claims.

Earlyn Walker, pro se, and J. Beth Moscarelli of Nixon Peabody LLP for the defendant

11th Amendment

Prisoner Civil Rights

Ward v. LeClaire

07-CV-6145

Judge Siragusa

Background: The plaintiff, a prison inmate, has moved to amend his complaint and the defendants moved to dismiss portions of the proposed amended complaint, specifically the portions that name them in their official capacity. Those portions already were dismissed in 2007 as the 11th Amendment bars federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over claims against states absent their consent to such suit or an express statutory waiver of immunity.

Ruling: The defendants' motion to dismiss the official capacity claims is granted as the plaintiff provided no rationale for reconsideration of the previous decision. The defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims against certain of the defendants is granted along with a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's conspiracy claim.

Kenneth Ward, pro se, and Gary M. Levine, New York State Attorney General's Office, for the defendant

Negligence

Strict Products Liability

Automobile Insurance Co. of Hartford Connecticut v. Murray Inc.

04-CV-770

Judge Arcara

Background: The plaintiffs commenced action seeking relief for damage caused by a 2001 fire at their home at 495 Highland Ave. in the Town of Tonawanda. The fire was ignited by a defective electric- start lawnmower "designed, manufactured, assembled, licensed, sold, distributed, inspected, serviced and repaired" by the defendants. The lawnmower, designed by Home Depot and Murray, and manufactured by Murray, was sold at retail to the Zaroleses by Home Depot. Investigators determined the fire was ignited by defective wiring in the lawnmower when, after being used to cut grass at the residence, it burst into "flames coming from the top of the lawnmower" after being placed in the garage attached to the residence. The plaintiffs allege negligence, strict products liability for a design and manufacturing defect and breach of implied and express warranties. The defendant moved to dimiss.

Ruling: The implied warranty claim survives the motion to dismiss; however, the breach of express warranty is dismissed as the claim was untimely. The court finds Scotts had a legal duty to control Murray in the reasonable design and manufacture of a non- defective or safe electric-start lawnmower and, based on the evidence in the case, a reasonable juror could find Scotts breached that duty, resulting in the plaintiff's loss. The negligence claim survives the motion to dismiss, and the strict products liability claim also survives.

Hugh M. Russ III of Hodgson Russ LLP for the plaintiff, and Brian Arthur MacDonald of Kenney, Shelton, Liptak & Nowak LLP for the defendants