In Ellis v. The City of New York, No. 157791/2023, 2024 WL 4894431 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Nov. 25, 2024), the court, applying the “election of remedies” doctrine under the New York State Human Rights Law, dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for employment discrimination.
From the decision:
Here, Plaintiff initiated an action with the NYSDHR concerning her employment with the NYPD from June 2022 to July 2022. The NYSDHR conducted an investigation and ultimately issued a no probable cause determination. Rather than challenging this determination, Plaintiff commenced a plenary action based on the same facts and circumstances alleged in the administrative complaint. Having elected to seek administrative review of her allegations, Plaintiff is now precluded from pursuing judicial review of the same claims. Although Plaintiff argues that she only brought her administrative complaint against the City and the NYPD and not the individually named Defendants, Plaintiff named the individual Defendants in her administrative complaint (NYSCEF Doc No. 13, NYSDHR complaint at 4).
Moreover, the NYSDHR investigated the allegations against these individuals and ultimately found there was “no probable cause to believe that the City or the NYPD was engaged or engaging in the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of” (NYSCEF Doc No. 14, NYSDHR Determination and Order After Investigation). Accordingly, Plaintiff elected her remedy against the individually named Defendants, as well as the City and the NYPD.
Finally, Plaintiff’s contention that the NYSDHR failed to conduct an investigation because the determination did not specify who was interviewed or what evidence was reviewed is equally unpersuasive. Any challenge to the adequacy of the investigation should have been raised within sixty days of the determination (NY Exec Law § 298). Plaintiff’s attempt to raise these arguments now, in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, cannot overcome Plaintiff’s deliberate choice to file an administrative complaint (see Stewart v. LLC, 138 AD3d at 414 [“A pro se litigant acquires no greater rights than those of any other litigant and cannot use such status to deprive defendant of the same rights as other defendants”]). This court is bound by the election of remedies provisions under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, as well as by the NYSDHR’s no probable cause determination.
Based on the foregoing, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.