▶ Video explainer coming soon
The court made two separate decisions. It agreed that Perez could move forward with her discrimination and retaliation claims. The court said her complaint had enough facts to support these claims under New York City's Human Rights Law. But the court dismissed the aiding and abetting claim against D'Amico personally. The court explained that a person cannot 'aid and abet' their own actions. Aiding and abetting requires helping someone else break the law. Since D'Amico was accused of his own discriminatory conduct, this specific claim against him could not continue.
Pauline Perez worked for Y & M Transportation Corporation. She is African-American. Perez sued the company and her manager, Lenny D'Amico. She claimed she faced discrimination based on her race and a perceived disability. Her lawsuit had three claims. First, she said she faced unfair treatment and a hostile work environment. Second, she claimed the company retaliated against her. Third, she claimed D'Amico helped the company break discrimination laws. This is called 'aiding and abetting.' The defendants asked the court to dismiss all three claims. A lower court said no. The defendants then appealed that decision.
The appeals court had to answer two questions. First, did Perez's complaint include enough facts to support her discrimination and retaliation claims? Second, can a manager be legally responsible for 'aiding and abetting' discrimination he committed himself, or does that claim only apply when someone helps another person discriminate?
This case clarifies an important legal rule in New York City discrimination cases. Managers can still face lawsuits for discrimination and retaliation they commit directly. But the 'aiding and abetting' claim works differently. It applies when someone helps another person discriminate, not when they act on their own. This distinction affects how future discrimination lawsuits are written and argued.
Talk to a licensed employment law lawyer in New York.