Comments on Recent Cases: May 2023
Image credit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coronation_of_Charles_III_and_Camilla_-_Coronation_Procession_(12).jpg
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 Considers Whether Charter School May Have Sex-Based Dress Code
I wrote a cover story for the ABA magazine, Litigation News, about a very interesting lawsuit. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether a charter school can implement different dress codes for boys and girls to promote “chivalry.” The case implicates questions about the independence of charter schools and the degree to which the federal law regulates sexist attitudes.
In my article, I wrote an article about the intermediate appellate decision and the very sharp disagreements between the panel of judges that heard the case.
Court Permits New Case Theory in Amended Complaint
In litigation, parties may change their theories. An adversary is free to point out that the opponent changed their story in an effort to discredit it, but that may not stop the change.
For example, in a recent case before the state appellate court in Manhattan, a management company sued the musician Akon for royalties. At first, the company alleged that its contract entitled them to royalties since Akon had not signed a deal with a “major record label,” but instead formed his own label. When the case was dismissed, the company sued again and claimed that Akon’s new label qualified as a “major record label” and under a different theory, his work with that label entitled it to royalties. The court permitted the management company to pursue its new theory in an amended complaint.
Cases like this demonstrate the flexibility parties have in litigation to articulate a viable theory.
Court Strikes Defenses As Penalty For Failure to Attend Deposition
Participating in depositions can be expensive, time-consuming, and annoying. But it can also be necessary. Failure to do so can result in a court refusing to consider a party’s other claims or defenses.
For example, in a recent case before the state appellate court in Manhattan, a litigant demanded one of the parties appear at a deposition. The party repeatedly refused and the trial court responded by dismissing its claims and defenses against another litigant in the lawsuit. The party had fair warning, though, since its refusal to participate followed a “series of court orders directing it to appear.”
Cases like this illustrate how important it is for parties to take seriously their discovery obligations.
Emails Constitute Enforceable Settlement Agreement
Parties often negotiate settlement agreements over email. And while a settlement agreement may become official once both sides sign the formal contract the lawyers prepare, it is possible for the emails themselves to become an operative agreement subject to litigation.
For example, in a recent case before the state appellate court in Manhattan, a plaintiff sued a defendant for breach of an agreement that was expressed in emails but not yet set forth in a formal settlement agreement. The court held that the emails were an agreement, even though they said their terms were “subject to a formalized Settlement Agreement,” because that expression did not mean that the parties meant the agreement to only take effect once a formal agreement was executed.
Cases like this illustrate how parties can form agreements before signing formal papers.
Complaint Fails to Establish Basis to Infer Racial Discrimination
To succeed in racial discrimination litigation, a plaintiff needs to allege more than poor treatment and membership in a protected class. Instead, a plaintiff may need to allege that the defendant said something that indicates bias or treated people of other races differently. And these allegations need to be in the complaint.
For example, in a recent case, the state appellate court in Manhattan affirmed the dismissal of a racial discrimination claim against a hotel. Black guests of the hotel were evicted from the property and claimed discrimination. But since the plaintiffs did not allege a hotel employee said anything about their race or failed to evict white guests in similar circumstances, the court dismissed the case.
Cases like this illustrate the burdens plaintiffs have when drafting a racial discrimination complaint.