Comments on Recent Cases: January 2023
Image credit: By Ixocactus - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=127204320
Part of my work involves reading court decisions to keep abreast of how judges decide the types of cases I handle. Below, I share some thoughts on recent decisions.
Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Contract Dispute Where Both Parties’ Interpretations of an Agreement Are Reasonable
Parties to a contract often go to court when they have different interpretations of what an agreement means. Litigation, however, is expensive and burdensome, and so many litigants ask the court to decide the issue of contract interpretation at the start of a lawsuit, before going through discovery. But at an initial stage, courts may decline to decide how to interpret an agreement.
This issue arose in a recent case in the state appellate court in Manhattan. The plaintiff and defendant each had different, but reasonable, interpretations of the agreement. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny a motion to dismiss the complaint since courts consider the question of how to interpret an ambiguous contract on summary judgment, after discovery.
Cases like this illustrate the procedure involved in lawsuits over contract interpretation.
Court Orders Dimissal Where Complaint Fails to Identify Defendant’s Specific Negligent Act
In litigation, it is important to be specific. While a litigant may want to say that an adversary was negligent or committed misconduct, it is important to support those claims with specific actions that the adversary took and why those actions were wrong. This is especially important so a defendant can understand the allegations against it and mount a defense.
A recent case before the state appellate court in Manhattan illustrates this issue. The plaintiff in that case claimed that the defendant hospital was negligent in not noticing that a patient was addicted to heroin and died in the waiting room. The trial court refused to dismiss the case, but the appellate court reversed and ordered dismissal since the plaintiff failed to identify a specific action the hospital was required to but failed to take. The court held that the general assertion that the hospital had an obligation to promptly treat patients was insufficient to address what the hospital did and held that the plaintiff’s expert failed to cite a rule that required the hospital to prohibit patients from sleeping in a waiting room.
Cases like this underscore the need for litigants to provide specific details to support their claims.
Court Dismisses Employment Discrimination Case When Plaintiff Fails to Allege Evidence of Discriminatory Intent
When an older employee is fired, she may consider a lawsuit alleging age discrimination. And, for the purpose of negotiating a severance or a settlement, it may be enough to threaten a lawsuit and prompt an employer to pay rather than face litigation. But without actual evidence of discrimination, the lawsuit may not go very far.
The state appeals court in Manhattan considered this issue in a recent case. The employee alleged that he was fired at age 79, but did not state any other allegations that suggested discrimination. The court dismissed the case before discovery, holding that more detailed allegations are needed to support the case. In my experience, plaintiffs meet this burden by citing discriminatory statements by the employer or comparing the employer’s treatment of employees who are not in the same protected class.
Decisions like this illustrate the burdens plaintiffs have in employment discrimination cases.