In Abraham v. New York City, No. 154577/2024, 2025 WL 1907928 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County July 10, 2025), the court, inter alia, held that the “joint employer” doctrine did not apply, and thus granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims against defendants New York City and the New York City Department of Education.
In sum, plaintiff’s claims against these entities on the grounds that defendant Urban Assembly Charter School is housed within a DOE building, and that they thereby exercised control over Urban Assembly, making them liable for violating her rights and breaching her employment contract.
In assessing the joint employment issue, the court explained:
In determining whether an ostensible non employer is actually a “joint employer’ ” for purposes of employment discrimination claims under the State and City Human Rights Laws (HRLs), numerous Federal District Courts have applied the “immediate control” test [internal citation omitted]. “Under the “immediate control” formulation, a “joint employer relationship may be found to exist where there is sufficient evidence that the defendant had immediate control over the other company’s employees,” and particularly the defendant’s control “over the employee in setting the terms and conditions of the employee’s work.” “Relevant factors” in this exercise “include commonality of hiring, firing, discipline, pay, insurance, records, and supervision.” Of these factors, “the extent of the employer’s right to control the means and manner of the worker’s performance is the most important factor.” Brankov v. Hazzard, 142 A.D.3d 445-446, 36 N.Y.S.3d 133, 134 (1st Dept. 2016).
As alleged in plaintiff’s complaint Urban Assembly onboarded, trained, and supervised plaintiff. Urban Assembly controlled where plaintiff was assigned to work, with whom she was to work with, and facilitated disciplinary and subsequent termination proceedings. Municipal Defendants had no role in the hiring, firing, discipline, pay, insurance, records, and supervision of plaintiff’s employment with Urban Assembly. The record plainly indicates that Urban Assembly, not Municipal Defendants, ultimately controlled plaintiff’s employment and that they were not plaintiff’s joint employer. Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the record fails to demonstrate that Municipal Defendants had the requisite immediate control over the terms and conditions of plaintiff’s employment to be subject to liability under NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and breach of her employment contract as a joint employer.
The court further noted that plaintiff failed to file a timely notice of claim as to the defendant DOE, pursuant to N.Y. Education Law § 3813(1) .