In Chauca v. Abraham, No. 113 (November 20, 2017), the New York State Court of Appeals established a lowered threshold for punitive damages under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

In Chauca, an employee sued her former employer and two of her supervisors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for sex and pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the NYCHRL. The district court judge denied the employee’s request for a jury instruction on punitive damages under the NYCHRL because her evidence did not meet the legal standard under Title VII. The employee appealed the denial arguing that, with respect to her NYCHRL claim, the District Court erred in using the Title VII standard for punitive damages. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that neither the statute nor case law provided sufficient guidance as to the appropriate standard for finding a defendant liable for punitive damages under the NYCHRL, and certified the question to the New York State Court of Appeals.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, provides for punitive damages where a plaintiff proves malice or reckless indifference. However, the NYCHRL does not articulate such a standard. In determining whether the NYCHRL should be held to the same standard as Title VII, the Court of Appeals analyzed the legislative intent of the NYCHRL and found that “’the provisions of [the NYCHRL] shall be construed liberally . . . regardless of whether federal or New York State civil or human rights laws . . . have been so construed.’”

Ultimately, the Court of Appeals held that “the standard for determining punitive damages under the NYCHRL is whether the wrongdoer has engaged in discrimination with wilful [sic] or wanton negligence, or recklessness, or a ‘conscious disregard of the rights of others or conduct so reckless as to amount to such disregard.’”

As a result of this decision, courts will be required to construe the NYCHRL more liberally and broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs than its federal and state counterparts. Thus, this is another reason employers should be especially mindful of their employment practices and strictly enforce anti-discrimination policies in the workplace.