NYCTA MUST REINSTATE CAUCASIAN MALE TO HIS EXECUTIVE POST

One of the employment discrimination cases that Mr. Smith has tried and won recently was in the area of race discrimination and unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In Reiter v. MTA, New York City Transit Authority, 01 Civ. 2762 (JGK) decided September 30, 2003. Cite as: 2003 WL 22271223 (S.D.N.Y.) John Reiter brought suit against his employer the New York City Transit Authority ("TA") for discrimination based upon his race and unlawful retaliation among other causes of action. Reiter was successful after trial where a jury found the Transit Authority liable for retaliation, awarded him $140,000.00 for emotional pain and suffering, and the district judge ordered that Reiter be reinstated to his previous position as Deputy Vice President of Engineering Services ("DVP Engineering Services").

Plaintiff John Reiter, a Caucasian male was among the highest-ranking and highest-paid employees of the TA. Plaintiff's core claim was for unlawful retaliation in response to employment discrimination charges filed by his wife (who is a woman of African descent) who was also a TA employee. The TA gave plaintiff an unjustified "marginal" performance review, and in response to Reiter having later filed his own EEOC Charge of discrimination, the TA unlawfully reassigned and demoted plaintiff.

The TA unsuccessfully argued in the district court that Reiter had no standing to bring retaliation charges based upon his wife's charge of discrimination and had no right to a trial based upon his own charge of discrimination. Additionally, the TA argued that because Reiter lost no wages or fringe benefits and in fact during the course of the litigation received salary increases, he was not entitled to a trial and that his lawsuit should be dismissed. The district court ruled against the TA and ordered a trial on whether Reiter was subjected to unlawful retaliation when the TA reassigned him to a position that although had a similar title: Deputy Vice President of Technical Services ("DVP Technical Services") it had none of the job benefits of his previous position. For e.g., as DVP Engineering Services, Reiter had a large corner office, a personal and confidential secretary, oversight of a multi-million dollar engineering and construction budget, he reported directly to the Senior Vice President of Capital Program Management, he had eight direct reports, and he was responsible for the entire Engineering Services Division of the TA that consisted of over eight hundred engineers and architects and their managers.

In his reassigned and demoted position as DVP Technical Services, Reiter had no direct reports, he no longer reported to the Senior Vice President for the Capital Program Management Department, he no longer was responsible for any budget oversight and he was no longer the leader of over eight hundred professional engineers and architects, he had no large corner office and no confidential secretary. The TA argued that although, Reiter was transferred he was not demoted because he lost no pay and no benefits and in fact received salary increases during the litigation period prior to trial.

The case was divided into legal and equitable issues, with the jury instructed to make findings of fact on the issues of liability and compensatory damages for pain and suffering. It was left for the Court to decide and order appropriate equitable relief. Following a six-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Reiter finding that the TA unlawfully retaliated against plaintiff for earlier filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. The jury awarded the plaintiff $140,000.00 in compensatory damages. Judge Koeltl upon motion by the TA later found that the jury award of $140,000.00 in compensatory damages was excessive. Ultimately, Reiter accepted a remittitur of $10,000.00 for his emotional pain and suffering.

After the verdict, the Honorable John G. Koeltl, USDJ in the Southern District of New York, Ordered equitable relief for plaintiff John Reiter. Ordering that he be reinstated to his former position as DVP Engineering Services retroactive to when he was transferred in June 2000. This was a huge victory for Reiter, that gave him personal satisfaction. Reiter protested that he had been demoted and lost his job responsibilities simply because his wife who is of African descent filed charges of discrimination against the TA. Reiter's rights were vindicated when he was restored to his executive position that he had worked so long and so tirelessly to achieve.

Smith continues to aggressively represent people like John Reiter, people who have been unfairly treated by their employer, and subjected to discrimination and humiliation. Smith looks forward to the opportunity to represent those who need his services.