On July 1, 2010, the New York Court of Appeals held that non-residents of New York City and State must plead and prove that alleged discriminatory conduct had an impact within the city or state in order to invoke the protections of the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). In Hoffman v. Parade Publications, 2010 NY Slip Op 05706, the Court found that requiring non-resident plaintiffs to demonstrate an impact within the applicable boundaries was consistent with the policies underpinning those statutes. Further, the New York Court of Appeals reasoned that focusing on the locale of the impact of the alleged discriminatory conduct was relatively simple for courts to apply and for litigants to follow, and would confine the benefits to those the statutes were designed to protect.

The Facts

Howard Hoffman, a resident of Georgia, worked as a managing director in the newspaper relations group of Parade Publications (“Parade”) in Atlanta. His duties included developing and overseeing accounts in ten states, mostly in the south and southwest. He did not service any accounts in New York. In October 2007, Hoffman received a call from Parade’s New York City headquarters advising him that the Atlanta office would close by year end and that his employment was being terminated.

The Trial Court

Hoffman filed a complaint alleging age discrimination against a number of defendants, including Parade, claiming that his termination violated the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL. Defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit on several grounds, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hoffman opposed the motion, arguing that he attended quarterly meetings in New York City, that the newspaper relations group was managed from the New York City office, that all corporate contracts were negotiated through the New York City office, and that the decision to terminate his employment was made and executed in New York.

The Supreme Court dismissed Hoffman’s complaint, holding that neither the NYCHRL nor the NYSHRL applied to a plaintiff who did not reside in New York because the impact of defendants’ alleged discriminatory conduct was not felt within New York City or State.

The Appellate Division

The Appellate Division reversed, finding that Hoffman’s allegation that the decision to terminate his employment was made in and executed from New York City was sufficient to demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. It certified a question to the New York Court of Appeals regarding whether the Appellate Division properly reversed the judgment of the trial court.
 

The New York Court of Appeals

The New York Court of Appeals considered whether non-residents of New York City and New York State must plead and prove that alleged discriminatory conduct had an impact within those respective boundaries. The Court relied upon the policies underlying those statutes in answering that question in the affirmative.
 

The Court of Appeals first addressed Hoffman’s NYCHRL claim, observing that the plain language of that statute clearly establishes that its protections extend only to those who inhabit or are “persons in” the City of New York. The Court also recognized that there was disagreement among state and federal courts concerning the territorial reach of the NYCHRL where the disputed conduct was directed to a non-resident who did not work in New York City.

The Court of Appeals resolved this disagreement by holding that the impact requirement was appropriate where a non-resident plaintiff seeks the protections of the NYCHRL. It reasoned that focusing on whether the employer’s action had an impact within the City would be relatively simple for courts and litigants to apply, would lead to predictable results and would best serve the intent of the NYCHRL to protect those who work in New York City. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Hoffman’s NYCHRL claim.

The Court of Appeals adopted a similar analysis for the NYSHRL claim, finding that the intent of the state statute was to protect those who work in New York. The Court concluded that a non-resident must plead and prove that the alleged discriminatory conduct had an impact in New York. Hoffman’s failure to satisfy that requirement led to a reversal of the Appellate Division decision and a dismissal of his age discrimination claims.
 

Conclusion

The Hoffman decision is significant for New York employers because claims made by out-of-state employees will not be actionable solely based on a termination decision made in New York. However, employers must be aware that the NYCHRL and the NYSHRL will continue to protect employees who reside or work in New York, as well as plaintiffs who can demonstrate that alleged discriminatory conduct had an impact within the borders of New York City and/or New York State.

 This Client Alert has been prepared by Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. for informational purposes only and does not constitute advertising or solicitation and should not be used or taken as legal advice. Those seeking legal advice should contact a member of the Firm or legal counsel licensed in their state. Transmission of this information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Confidential information should not be sent to Sills Cummis & Gross without first communicating directly with a member of the Firm about establishing an attorney-client relationship.