Mills v. Monroe County

• Decision Date: 09 June 1983
• Parties: , 451 N.E.2d 456, 32 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 95, 33 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,242 Chau MILLS, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MONROE, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 709

464 N.Y.S.2d 709

59 N.Y.2d 307, 451 N.E.2d 456, 32

Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 95,

33 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,242

Chau MILLS, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MONROE, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 9, 1983.

Paul A. Fischer, Rochester, for appellant.

John D. Doyle, County Atty. (Joseph C. Pilato, Deputy County Atty., of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

COOKE, Chief Judge.

When an employment discrimination action is brought against a county under the State or Federal civil rights statutes, the failure to timely file a notice of claim shall be fatal unless the action has been brought to vindicate a public interest or leave to serve late notice has been granted by the court. Inasmuch as plaintiff never filed a notice of claim and her action was brought to enforce merely a private right, her complaint was properly dismissed.

For six years, plaintiff had been a key-punch operator for the County of Monroe when, on August 13, 1980, her employment was terminated. After unsuccessfully pursuing arbitration under her union's collective bargaining agreement with the county, plaintiff commenced this action. Plaintiff alleged that the county had terminated her employment on the basis of her race and national origin and thereby violated section 296 of the Executive Law and section 1981 of title 42 of the United States Code.

At no time did plaintiff file a notice of claim. The county unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment of dismissal, the application having been based on plaintiff's failure to give notice. The Appellate Division, 89 A.D.2d 776, 453 N.Y.S.2d 486, reversed and dismissed the complaint. This court now affirms.

On this appeal, plaintiff contends that the notice of claim requirement contained in section 52 of the County Law does not apply to either her Federal or State civil rights claims. ^* With respect to her Federal claim, plaintiff argues that imposition of the notice of claim requirement is inconsistent with the remedial and deterrent policies of the civil rights law. Although Congress established no timeliness or notice requirements to apply to section 1981 actions brought in Federal court, these courts have been instructed that, when interstices or voids occur in the Federal law, they should borrow the applicable State rule of law so long as it is not "inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States" (U.S.Code, tit. 42, § 1988; see Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 64 L.Ed.2d 440; Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295). It is true that the Federal District Courts in New York have not applied the State's notice of claim statutes in civil rights actions brought under section 1981 (see Paschall v. Mayone, 454 F.Supp. 1289 Glover v. City of New York, 401 F.Supp. 632 ) or section 1983 (see Brandon v. Board of Educ., 487 F.Supp. 1219 affd. 635 F.2d 971 cert. den. 454 U.S. 1123, 102 S.Ct. 970, 71 L.Ed.2d 109; Davis v. Krauss, 478 F.Supp. 823 ). This court, however, does not find that the State's notice requirements are antithetical to the policy underlying the civil rights laws.

The Supreme Court has held that, in applying a State Statute of Limitations to a civil rights action, the State statute " 'cannot be considered "inconsistent" with federal law merely because the statute causes the plaintiff to lose the litigation. If success of the § 1983 action were the only benchmark, there would be no reason at all to look to state law, for the appropriate rule would then always be the one favoring the plaintiff and its source would be essentially irrelevant.' " (Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 488, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 1797, 64 L.Ed.2d 440, supra, quoting Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 593, 98 S.Ct. 1991, 1996, 56 L.Ed.2d 554.) Accordingly, that court has upheld the application of a State's one-year Statute of Limitations to civil rights actions brought in Federal court (see Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 44 L.Ed.2d 295, supra ).

In Johnson v. Railway Express (supra ), the court noted that "borrowing a state period of limitation for application to a federal cause of action, a federal court is relying on the State's wisdom in setting a limit, and exceptions thereto, on the prosecution of a closely analogous claim." (Id., at p. 464, 95 S.Ct. at p. 1722.) The notice of claim requirements in this State serve an important State interest. Requiring notice allows a governmental subdivision a meaningful opportunity to investigate in a timely manner the circumstances that gave rise to a claim. " 'The requirement of notice is one of the safeguards devised by the law to protect municipalities against fraudulent and stale claims for injuries to person and property' " (see Sandak v. Tuxedo Union School Dist. No. 3, 308 N.Y. 226, 232, 124 N.E.2d 295, quoting Tenth Ann. Report of N.Y. Judicial Council, 1944, p. 265). Therefore, the general restrictive effect of a State notice of claim requirement does not of itself bar its application to Federal civil rights actions.

Moreover, the flexibility with which the timeliness requirement of the notice statute may be applied and the existence of a judicially created exception to the notice requirement indicate that the statute causes no undue inhibition to the bringing of civil rights actions. In the area of civil rights, this court has recognized an important exception to the notice requirement. In Union Free School Dist. No. 6 of Towns of Islip & Smithtown v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 35 N.Y.2d 371, 380, 362 N.Y.S.2d 139, 320 N.E.2d 859, it held that notice of claim requirements do not apply to actions brought "to vindicate a public interest." All actions brought to enforce civil rights can be said to be in the public interest (see Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 966, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263). But, actions that are brought to protect an important right, which seek relief for a similarly situated class of the public, and whose resolution would directly affect the rights of that class or group are deserving of special treatment. The interests in their resolution on the merits override the State's interest in receiving timely notice before commencement of an action (...