In Sadel v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., No. 153732/2020, 2025 WL 2932697 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 09, 2025), an employment discrimination case, the court granted the defendant’s motion to sever plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules 603.
From the decision:
This is an employment discrimination action in which both plaintiffs assert claims against Equinox relating to pregnancy discrimination laws under New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), and familial status discrimination under the NYSHRL and caregiver discrimination under the NYSHRL.
In evaluating motions to sever, under CPLR 603, this court assesses five factors to determine whether a common nucleus of facts exists: (1) the nature of the discrimination against each plaintiff, (2) whether each plaintiff worked in different roles and locations, (3) whether each plaintiff had the same supervisors, (4) the dates that each plaintiff began their employment and their dates of termination, and (5) the resultant damages alleged by each plaintiff. Hickson v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 87 A.D.2d 527, 527-28 (1st Dep’t 1982).
Here, Sadel worked primarily in Canada and later in New York, held a National Account Executive title, and includes a distinct Equal Pay Act claim. In contrast, DiDomenico worked in New York and later Florida, held senior managerial roles, and brings no equal pay claim. The alleged adverse actions occurred at different times and involved different decision-makers, including comments by different supervisors. It therefore appears the plaintiffs have not shown sufficient facts to satisfy this criterion.
In the end, as discovery has been completed and trial readiness is approaching, the Court finds that maintaining a joint trial would result in unnecessary complications and risk of prejudicial spillover between otherwise unrelated factual scenarios.
Accordingly, the court held that the claims by each plaintiff are severed for separate trials.