Bobbi Piscitelli v. Deloitte Services, LLP, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Services, Inc., et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Employment discrimination—pregnancy discrimination and alleged disability accommodation under the New York State Human Rights Law (State HRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (City HRL); effect of stipulated discontinuance on paid family leave claims.
The Supreme Court, New York County, denied Deloitte’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s State HRL/City HRL pregnancy/disability discrimination claims and found Deloitte had not shown entitlement to dismissal of the paid family leave claims.
The Appellate Division modified to dismiss the State HRL/City HRL claims to the extent they alleged disability-based discrimination and failure to accommodate based on disability; otherwise affirmed.
Plaintiff expressly disclaimed any disability-based theory on appeal, eliminating any basis for disability discrimination or accommodation claims under Executive Law §§ 292[21], 296[1][a], [2][c][i] [New York State Human Rights Law provisions defining disability, prohibiting employment discrimination, and requiring reasonable accommodations] and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107[1][a][3], [22][a] [New York City Human Rights Law provisions prohibiting employment discrimination and mandating reasonable accommodations, including for pregnancy-related conditions], and consistent with Pimentel v Citibank, N.A., and Graham v New York State Office of Mental Health. The paid family leave causes of action had already been discontinued with prejudice by stipulation, rendering defendant’s summary judgment arguments unnecessary under CPLR 3217[a][2] [voluntary discontinuance by stipulation].
Background
Plaintiff Bobbi Piscitelli sued Deloitte entities alleging pregnancy-related discrimination and related violations under the State HRL and City HRL, and also asserted paid family leave claims. During the litigation, the parties stipulated in March 2021 to discontinue the paid family leave causes of action (eighth and ninth) with prejudice. Deloitte later moved for summary judgment to dismiss the remaining discrimination claims.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), denied Deloitte’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth causes of action alleging pregnancy/disability discrimination under the State HRL and City HRL, and held that Deloitte failed to demonstrate entitlement to dismissal of the paid family leave claims.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified, dismissing the third and fourth causes of action only to the extent they alleged discrimination based on disability and failure to accommodate a disability, because plaintiff disclaimed any disability-based claim. It also recognized that the paid family leave claims had been discontinued with prejudice by stipulation, making further argument unnecessary. In all other respects, the Supreme Court’s order was affirmed; defendant’s remaining arguments were found unavailing.
Legal Significance
The decision clarifies that when a plaintiff explicitly disclaims a disability theory, disability-based discrimination and accommodation claims under the State HRL and City HRL cannot proceed, and courts will narrow claims accordingly. It also underscores that a stipulation discontinuing claims with prejudice moots later summary judgment arguments on those claims under CPLR 3217(a)(2).
If a plaintiff disclaims disability as a basis for relief, courts will dismiss disability discrimination and accommodation components of HRL claims; and claims discontinued with prejudice by stipulation are treated as resolved, rendering related motion practice unnecessary.