David G. Larimer

This ERISA case concerns Xerox employees who left the company, received lump-sum pension distributions, and later returned, raising questions about how prior distributions should be offset when calculating future benefits under the Retirement Income Guarantee Plan to prevent either underpayment or windfalls. After prior appeals, the Supreme Court held that the district court must defer to the Plan Administrator's interpretation of the plan unless unreasonable, remanding for further proceedings. On the pending motions, the court addressed the Administrator's proposed offset methodology, including use of a phantom account, and the enforceability of release forms signed by some plaintiffs. The core reasoning emphasized that plan interpretation is subject to deference under the Supreme Court's directive, while distinguishing issues of notice, disclosure, and equitable relief that may require separate analysis under ERISA provisions.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerned a supply contract between Eastman Kodak Company and Collins Ink Corporation under which Collins provided ink for Kodak's commercial printers. After years of performance, Collins attempted to terminate the agreement immediately in October 2011 based on concerns about Kodak's finances, without providing the required 180 days' notice or following the contract's termination-for-cause procedures, and instead demanded cash-on-delivery payments. Kodak sued for breach of contract and sought a preliminary injunction to compel continued performance. The court granted the injunction, concluding that Kodak showed a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm from disruption of its operations, and that the equities and public interest supported preserving the contractual status quo rather than allowing unilateral termination.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved five employees suing J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. on behalf of a class to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York law. After preliminary approval of a settlement, conditional class certification, and a fairness hearing, the court decided to grant final approval of the proposed class action settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and also awarded attorney fees. The core reasoning applied the presumption of fairness for arm's-length negotiations by experienced counsel after discovery, assessed procedural fairness through the negotiation process and substantive fairness via the nine Grinnell factors, and found objections unpersuasive while noting the limited judicial role of approving or rejecting the agreement as written.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Medina v. Skowron, a prisoner sued several New York Department of Correctional Services employees, claiming First Amendment retaliation, equal protection violations, and disability discrimination after his removal from an Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment program and a porter job at Wende Correctional Facility in 2008, allegedly in response to his grievances against staff. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the remaining claims. On the retaliation claim, the court found no evidence of a causal link between the grievances and the removals, as the decisions were supported by documented reasons such as lack of progress in the program and security concerns. The equal protection claim failed because the plaintiff did not identify any similarly situated inmates treated differently, and the disability claims lacked supporting evidence of discrimination or denial of access based on disability.

criminal lawcivil rights

In this case, a legally blind inmate sued multiple New York Department of Correctional Services employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging due process violations, equal protection violations, ADA violations, and related claims arising from a May 2009 Tier III disciplinary hearing at Elmira Correctional Facility. The hearing, based on a misbehavior report accusing the plaintiff of inappropriate physical contact with a staff member, resulted in a two-year SHU sentence that was later reversed; the plaintiff claimed he received inadequate assistance due to his disability, was denied requested witnesses, and suffered from lack of accommodations both before and after transfer to Sullivan Correctional Facility. The court granted the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible due process claim because any liberty interest was not clearly established and procedural protections were adequate, that ADA damages claims against state officials were barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and that the equal protection allegations were conclusory without facts showing discriminatory motive or disparate treatment of similarly situated inmates. The plaintiff's motion for counsel was denied as moot.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned plaintiff Deborah Caskey’s claims that her employer, the County of Ontario, and supervisor John Cooley violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and New York Human Rights Law by abolishing her Finance Clerk position, replacing it with a Microfilm Machine Operator role filled by a significantly younger person, and retaliating against her. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and alternatively for summary judgment, arguing that many allegations were time-barred and that the complaint failed to state actionable claims. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the retaliation claims entirely and barring consideration of time-barred incidents, while permitting the discriminatory discharge claim to proceed on the basis that the allegations plausibly supported an inference of age discrimination; it denied summary judgment as premature and the plaintiff’s discovery motion as moot. The decision applied the Twombly plausibility standard to the complaint’s factual allegations and the elements required for an ADEA claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Zucco v. Auto Zone, Inc., the plaintiff, an employee at an Auto Zone store, sued her employer for sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment and for sex discrimination under Title VII, citing incidents such as a male manager using the women's bathroom and leaving a tabloid there, varying work hours after a complaint, requests for proof of vacation plans, and comments like "if you have time to lean, you have time to clean." The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in full. The court held that the alleged incidents, spanning over two years, were not sufficiently severe, pervasive, threatening, or humiliating to establish a hostile work environment claim, and that the plaintiff had not identified any adverse employment action or facts creating an inference of gender-based discrimination for the disparate treatment claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves the U.S. government's civil forfeiture action under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) to seize $27,601 in cash found during a search of Luis Colon's home in connection with a narcotics investigation. Colon filed a claim to the property but did not file an answer to the complaint or respond to the government's motion to strike the claim. The court granted the motion, holding that claimants must strictly comply with the procedural requirements of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, including timely filing both a claim and an answer; failure to do so results in lack of statutory standing to contest the forfeiture.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved a Yates County Sheriff's Department employee suing the county, its sheriff, and an investigator under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment retaliation for filing a prior lawsuit about his demotion and for other activities such as running for office and lobbying. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The core reasoning was that the prior lawsuit and related conduct did not constitute protected speech because they addressed personal employment grievances rather than matters of public concern, and the plaintiff failed to allege any causal link between his other activities and the claimed adverse actions.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

This case involves a prisoner filing a § 1983 lawsuit against DOCS employees alleging constitutional violations related to his placement in administrative segregation at Elmira Correctional Facility from 2005 to 2007, including issues with notice of a hearing and a grievance about a chaplain's letter. The court, on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Most claims were dismissed due to lack of personal involvement by defendants or failure to state plausible claims, but the due process claim against Defendant Wenderlich for inadequate notice of the administrative segregation hearing was allowed to proceed.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involves Millennium Pipeline Company seeking a permanent easement across defendant Nathaniel Hendricks's property in Chemung County, New York, to construct and maintain a natural gas pipeline under the Natural Gas Act. The court had previously granted summary judgment to Millennium and issued an order effectuating the easement while denying Hendricks's motion to amend his pleadings. Hendricks then moved for a stay of those orders pending appeal and for a refund of one of two appellate filing fees he paid. The court denied the stay, finding that Hendricks failed to show a likelihood of success on appeal or irreparable harm not compensable by damages, but granted the fee refund due to the unusual circumstances of dual notices of appeal and his pro se status.

propertyprocedurefederal power

Larry Featherly brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) seeking review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying his application for disability and disability insurance benefits based on impairments including PTSD, depression, anxiety, and various paraphilias. The ALJ had determined at step four that Featherly retained the RFC to perform work at all exertional levels with some nonexertional limitations and was therefore not disabled. The district court reversed the Commissioner's decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the ALJ failed to articulate good reasons for the weight given to the opinions of treating and non-treating physicians as required by 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527, preventing meaningful review of whether substantial evidence supported the RFC finding.

healthcareprocedurefederal power

This case involves plaintiff Lisa Meney appealing the denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security, alleging disability due to depression and cognitive issues since 1999. The district court reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's determination that the plaintiff was not disabled under the five-step sequential evaluation process. The court granted the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence, including medical records and vocational expert testimony indicating the plaintiff could perform certain unskilled jobs.

federal power

In this case, former employee Stacey Yanklowski sued Brockport Central School District, alleging that the district interfered with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by disciplining and terminating her after she took medical leaves for herself and her son. The district moved to dismiss only the interference claim, and the court granted the motion. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had taken her entitled FMLA leaves, returned to her position each time without denial of benefits, and made no further leave requests, so her allegations about discipline and termination were properly viewed as a retaliation claim rather than interference under the FMLA.

labor & employment

This case is a discovery dispute arising from an FLSA lawsuit in which employees classified as sales and marketing representatives allege violations of wage and hour laws. The defendant sent a letter to employees stating that its pay practices conformed to Department of Labor guidelines based on counsel's advice. Plaintiffs sought to discover the underlying legal advice, arguing the letter waived attorney-client privilege, while the defendant objected. The magistrate judge ruled from the bench that the letter's disclosure constituted a waiver, and the district court affirmed that decision after review. The court held that under Second Circuit precedent, an extra-judicial public reference to the substance of legal advice, even in summary form, waives the privilege.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Bernard Gaidasz, a custodial worker employed by defendant Genesee Valley Board of Cooperative Education Systems (BOCES) since 2003, sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act alleging disability discrimination and retaliation based on his anxiety and depressive disorders. The alleged adverse actions included receiving a counseling memo for antisocial behavior, denial of a transfer to a day-shift position, and a temporary transfer to a less desirable building; he also claimed retaliation after complaining about discrimination. The court granted BOCES's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiff failed to show he suffered an adverse employment action giving rise to an inference of discrimination or to rebut the defendant's legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. On the retaliation claim, the court determined there was no evidence of protected activity that placed the employer on notice of discrimination complaints or any causal connection to an adverse action. The decision applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and held that the counseling memo and transfer denial did not qualify as adverse actions under the ADA.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Brown v. Ontario County, plaintiff David Brown sued the county and several of its employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and racial profiling after officers arrested him at a storage facility where he was observed with suspicious items later identified as stolen. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in full. The court reasoned that the officers had probable cause to arrest based on the totality of circumstances, including Brown's presence with bolt cutters, gloves, and visible stolen property at an opened unit, which defeats the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims. It further held that the individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity, the prosecutor to absolute immunity, and the county to dismissal because no unconstitutional municipal policy was shown.

civil rightscriminal law

The case involved Maurice McMillan, Jr., who had received Supplemental Security Income benefits as a child due to a disability but had his eligibility reevaluated under adult standards upon turning 18. The Commissioner of Social Security determined he was not disabled, a decision upheld by an Administrative Law Judge after a hearing, finding that McMillan's Type 1 diabetes was well-controlled and did not prevent substantial gainful activity. McMillan sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), arguing for continued benefits. The court granted the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including medical records, McMillan's education and employment history, daily activities, and a vocational expert's testimony identifying suitable jobs. The court affirmed the denial of benefits, concluding McMillan had the residual functional capacity to work at the medium exertional level with modest restrictions.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In this case, former Stantec employee Steven Thomsen sued the company alleging disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York Human Rights Law, as well as interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in full. The decision rested on the finding that Thomsen failed to establish a prima facie case of ADA discrimination because he did not show that his impairment substantially limited a major life activity, as required by the statute. The FMLA interference claim was rejected for lack of prior notice of any need for leave, while the retaliation claim could not overcome the employer's legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons of work slowdown and performance deficiencies.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a former inmate who sued New York parole officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that parole release conditions barring contact with his wife were based on a dismissed and sealed domestic violence charge that should have been expunged from his record. The plaintiff alleged violations including equal protection and marital rights arising from the use of that information in the parole process. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, holding that the allegations did not identify similarly situated individuals treated differently to support an equal protection claim and that New York's parole scheme creates no protected liberty interest under due process. The court further observed that other information independent of the rap sheet supported the parole decision.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure