Punitive Damages Against Municipalities: A Groundbreaking Interpretation of the NYCHRL
In a recent decision, the Southern District of New York held that the common law presumption against allowing punitive damages against municipality is rebutted by the language in the the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). See, Jordan v. City of New York, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214421 (SDNY November 22, 2024). This groundbreaking ruling in underscores the unique breadth of remedies available under the NYCHRL and its divergence from state and federal counterparts.
The Case in Brief
Tamara Jordan, a per diem hearing officer, brought claims against the City of New York, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation for requesting a reasonable accommodation. While preparing for trial, the lawyer’s for the City argued that the court should dismiss the punitive damages claim because the common law traditionally bars such damages against municipalities unless expressly authorized by statute. The court denied the City’s motion on this point, emphasizing that the NYCHRL expressly permits punitive damages with no exceptions for municipal defendants.
Key Legal Reasoning
The court pointed out that punitive damages against municipalities have historically been barred due to common law principles articulated in cases like City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, at 259-264 (U.S. 1981). However, the court in Jordan found that the NYCHRL’s language expressly allows such damages. Specifically:
Statutory Text Matters: Section 8-502(a) of the NYCHRL authorizes "damages, including punitive damages" for unlawful discriminatory practices without carving out exceptions for municipal entities. According to the court, this language satisfies the test established in recent Second Circuit precedent (Gilead Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Town of Cromwell, 112 F.4th 93, at 103 (2d Cir. 2024)), which held that statutes allowing punitive damages "with no textually specified exceptions" apply to municipalities.
The Remedial Nature of the NYCHRL: Reflecting its broad purpose, the NYCHRL is often interpreted more expansively than federal and state human rights laws. Its goal is to deter discriminatory practices and hold all parties—including public entities—accountable.
Implications for Municipalities and Plaintiffs
This decision is a game-changer for litigants seeking to hold municipal entities accountable for discrimination under the NYCHRL. It has several critical implications:
Increased Accountability: Municipal employers now face the possibility of punitive damages, incentivizing them to strengthen compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
Enhanced Remedies for Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs alleging egregious violations of their rights under the NYCHRL have greater leverage, as punitive damages can significantly increase the potential recovery.
Broadening Divergence: The decision highlights the NYCHRL's departure from narrower interpretations of remedies under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and federal statutes like the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, which explicitly bar punitive damages against government entities.
Conclusion
The decision in Jordan v. City of New York reaffirms the NYCHRL's aggresive stance on combating discrimination. For plaintiffs, it opens the door to meaningful remedies, including punitive damages, against public employers. For municipalities, it signals an urgent need for vigilance and compliance to avoid substantial liabilities.
