Loftman v. Columbia University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loftman v. Columbia University

52 A.D.3d 418, 860 N.Y.S.2d 525

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 26, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.3d 418 (Loftman v. Columbia University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Loftman v. Columbia University, 52 A.D.3d 418, 860 N.Y.S.2d 525 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 2, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the cause of action for disparate pay based on race, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to meet her initial burden of establishing prima facie that she, an African-American, received a lower salary than that of similarly situated midwives under circumstances giving rise to an inference of race discrimination (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 305 [2004]). In any event, defendant introduced evidence of legitimate reasons for its salary determinations, and plaintiff failed to prove that those reasons were false and that discrimination was the real reason (see id.). The evidence established that defendant’s hiring of new midwives at higher rates of pay while not increasing plaintiffs salary was prompted by short-staffing, a wage freeze for on-staff midwives, and the salary demands of prospective new hires; that, in order to increase salaries notwithstanding the freeze, defendant revised the job description to include night and weekend work and work at a satellite clinic; and that when the new job description was offered to the on-staff midwives, plaintiff accepted the offer and received a substantial increase in salary.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 2, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the cause of action for disparate pay based on race, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to meet her initial burden of establishing prima facie that she, an African-American, received a lower salary than that of similarly situated midwives under circumstances giving rise to an inference of race discrimination (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 305 [2004]). In any event, defendant introduced evidence of legitimate reasons for its salary determinations, and plaintiff failed to prove that those reasons were false and that discrimination was the real reason (see id.). The evidence established that defendant’s hiring of new midwives at higher rates of pay while not increasing plaintiffs salary was prompted by short-staffing, a wage freeze for on-staff midwives, and the salary demands of prospective new hires; that, in order to increase salaries notwithstanding the freeze, defendant revised the job description to include night and weekend work and work at a satellite clinic; and that when the new job description was offered to the on-staff midwives, plaintiff accepted the offer and received a substantial increase in salary.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 418, 860 N.Y.S.2d 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loftman-v-columbia-university-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack