Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority
| Decision Date | 02 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86 Civ. 1061 (RWS).,86 Civ. 1061 (RWS). |
| Citation | 680 F. Supp. 87 |
| Parties | Maria J. CARRERO, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Miguel Peterson, Robert Harold, Al S. Parker and Rosalind Reyes Linares, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Maria Carrero ("Carrero") has moved the court to reconsider its oral decision of October 6, 1987, not to award her back pay. The motion to reconsider is granted and upon reconsideration back pay will be denied.
As set forth in the findings contained in the August 7, 1987 opinion, familiarity with which is assumed, Carrero initiated this action on February 5, 1986, alleging the discrimination which was found later to have existed. On that day she sought a preliminary injunction to restore her probationary position as Assistant Supervisor. The New York City Housing Authority ("NYCHA") offered her employment at her permanent classification as Heating Plant Technician at its project Sedgewick Houses. Carrero declined the offer and instead sought unpaid leave which was granted on condition that she not "engage in any employment or business or perform services of any nature or description in any capacity from which an income, fee, or other remuneration is derived, during the period for which leave has been granted." Although not of record, it is presumed that leave status conferred some benefits upon Carrero in the event of reinstatement which has now been directed.
As Carrero points out, back pay is the rule rather than the exception in constructive discharge cases, and the thrust of the Civil Rights statutes has been to make the injured party economically whole. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 418-19, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2372, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975). Consequently, it is not the absence or presence of bad faith on the employer's part that is at issue (such an inquiry would convert back pay into, essentially, punitive damages), but the economic injury suffered by the claimant. Id. at 422, 95 S.Ct. at 2373.
Given that Carrero was constructively discharged from her probationary position as Assistant Superintendent to which she cannot now be restored in the absence of an open position, the question is whether she then was obligated to work at her former, lower paid job as a Heating Plant Technician. The Supreme Court has held that while an injured party like Carrero has an obligation to mitigate damages, "the unemployed or underemployed claiman...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority
...any capacity from which an income, fee, or other remuneration is derived, during the period for which leave has been granted." 680 F.Supp. 87, 87 (S.D.N.Y.1987). After a year of discovery, the action was tried to the district court. In an opinion dated August 7, 1987, Judge Sweet found that......
-
Daines v. City of Mankato
...job requirements and using the selection process it did. 4 In making this argument, defendant relies on Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 680 F.Supp. 87, 88 (S.D.N.Y.1987), the holding of which was reversed in Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 890 F.2d 569, 580-81 5 At M......
-
Carrero v. New York City Housing Authority, 86 Civ. 1061 (RWS).
...and prior proceedings are described in detail in Carrero v. NYCHA, 668 F.Supp. 196 (S.D.N.Y.1987) ("Carrero I"), Carrero v. NYCHA, 680 F.Supp. 87 (S.D.N.Y.1987) ("Carrero II"), Carrero v. NYCHA, 685 F.Supp. 904 (S.D.N.Y.1988) ("Carrero III"), Carrero v. NYCHA, 890 F.2d 569 (2d Cir.1989) ("C......