| 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.
(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
|
,
