1.10.2013

SDNY Notes Split Re Conflict between Federal Reserve Act and State Anti-Discrimination Law


Per Goonan v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2013 WL 69196 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2013:

The proper interpretation of the FRA's dismiss at pleasure provision is undeniably a difficult question. Some courts have concluded that there is no conflict between the FRA and state anti-discrimination laws because this provision speaks only to contractual and other common law rights created under state law. See Katsiavelos, 1995 WL 103308, at *2–4; Mueller, 797 F.Supp. at 662–63. Other courts have read the provision as a wide-ranging grant of discretionary authority that shields the Fed from any liability that arises from termination decisions—except as impliedly amended by later-enacted federal anti-discrimination statutes.See, e.g., Fasano, 457 F.3d at 288. These courts, in turn, have split over whether state anti-discrimination laws are preempted in their entirety or only to the extent that they sweep more broadly than their federal counterparts. Compare Arrow, 358 F.3d at 393 (entirely preempted), with Kroske, 432 F.3d at 988–89 (partly preempted), and James II, 471 F.Supp.2d at 236 (same); see also Fasano, 457 F.3d at 288 (reserving judgment on this issue while noting that “[w]e need not take a position on whether state remedies exactly consonant with the ADA and 12 U.S.C. § 1831j would similarly offend ‘the full purposes and objectives of Congress' ”). In a dissenting opinion, three Justices of the California Supreme Court have gone even further than the federal courts by strongly suggesting that later-enacted federal anti-discrimination laws did not impliedly amend the FRA—in which case the Fed would be immune even from ADA liability. See Peatros v. Bank of Am. NT & SA, 22 Cal.4th 147, 185 (2000) (Brown, J., dissenting). In sum, district and appellate courts that have addressed this issue are deeply divided.

Recognizing this split in judicial authority, and considering both the arguments advanced by the parties and the arguments offered by other courts, this Court concludes that the FRA doesnot preempt state and local anti-discrimination laws. In reaching that conclusion, the Court has considered all three forms of preemption: express, field, and conflict. None applies here.

8 Comments:

At 6:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Prof. Spencer,

Do you think this issue is one the Supreme Court will see fit to resolve any time soon? If not, do you think the federal anti-discrimination statutes are adequate to realistically cover the potential causes of action that will continue to arise in the employment setting? Also, is this judicial confusion over statutory interpretation typical in circumstances where a moral gulf exists between two congresses separated by so many decades?

Thank you,

​--
J. Tyler Black
Washington and Lee School of Law
J.D. Candidate, May 2014
Black.j@law.wlu.edu

 
At 4:10 AM, Anonymous spencer smith attorney san francisco said...

Thanks

 
At 1:34 AM, Anonymous kievy said...

Appreciate sharing your experiences and thoughts. This is very helpful. http://www.getcliqup.com

 
At 5:53 AM, Blogger NorthQueensland said...

Hello,

My Name is Cosmo Miller and I am the Affiliate Manager at James Publishing’s affiliate program currently managed by Commission Junction.

James Publishing has become one of the best sources for practice-oriented law books in the legal service industry. Over the decades we have encouraged our authors to load their books with time-saving motions and pleadings, client letters, and step-by-step procedural checklists. We have also sought heavy doses of pattern arguments, model questions, pitfalls to avoid, and practice tips. You can find out more about our catalog by visiting us at: www.jamespublishing.com

I contacted you a few days ago with a business proposal in my mind. I didn’t receive your reply and I thought that maybe you had never received my email.

I wanted to take a moment to reach out regarding an opportunity for us to partner up, whereby you’d be earning commissions on sales your referrals made through an affiliate link on your website.

The commission earnings start from 25 percent and go up depending on your performance.
If you join our affiliate program, and put up any two of our promotional materials in your website by 20th May 2013, I will increase your default commission level from 25 percent to 27 percent.

To join (or learn more about) our program you may fill out the application here http://goo.gl/iobuu
If you’re not ready to join the affiliate program right away, I would still love to hear back from you: to see how/if we can still work together.
I am looking forward to your reply.

Best Regards,
Cosmo Miller/Affiliate Manager
Email: cmiller@jamespublishing.com
www.jamespublishing.com

 
At 7:25 AM, Anonymous Spencer smith attorney san Francisco said...

hello guys
It is the best information related to spencer smith san francisco attorney.

 
At 3:17 AM, Anonymous Rachel said...

State and Federal will always come at odds and unless there is something that really addresses the cause or issue it can be taken to a federal level.

 
At 4:05 AM, Blogger selena richard said...

Thanks for your such an informative and lovely blog. I really appreciate you .
Black friday 3D HDTV Deals

 
At 2:50 PM, Blogger Mahmood Saleem said...

I like this article this is full of information thanks to write that kind of article
http://www.consumerspk.com/damages-of-rs-50700-on-faulted-mobile/

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Visit Aspen Publishers today! Free Shipping!