SIER v. PERSINGER PARKER (1997)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered March 28, 1996, which, inter alia, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint only to the extent of dismissing that branch of plaintiff's retaliatory claim relating to defendant's alleged negative employment references, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 Summary judgment was properly denied with respect to plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim since defendants failed to meet their burden of providing admissible proof of a “legitimate, independent, nondiscriminatory” reason for discharging plaintiff associate (Sogg v. American Airlines, 193 A.D.2d 153, 156, 603 N.Y.S.2d 21, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 754, 612 N.Y.S.2d 109, 634 N.E.2d 605;  Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 2d Cir., 66 F.3d 1295, 1308).   We also agree that summary judgment dismissal of the sexual harassment claim on Statute of Limitations grounds was precluded by factual issues as to the timing of at least one of the alleged harasser's discriminatory acts and whether any act within the period of limitations constituted a continuing violation (Cornwell v. Robinson, 2d Cir., 23 F.3d 694, 703-704;  see, Murphy v. American Home Prods.   Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 307, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86).   Similarly, triable issues of fact remain regarding whether defendant law firm condoned the discriminatory acts of the alleged harasser (see, Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v. St. Elizabeth's Hosp., 66 N.Y.2d 684, 496 N.Y.S.2d 411, 487 N.E.2d 268).   Under Section 26 of the New York Partnership Law, the individual partners of defendant law firm are severally and jointly liable for the discriminatory acts of the firm (Schutz v. Finkelstein Bruckman Wohl Most & Rothman, 232 A.D.2d 470, 648 N.Y.S.2d 174).

We have considered the parties' remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.