Jess D. McCavitt v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation
237 F.3d 166, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 168, 17 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 161 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York Labor Law § 201-d, romantic dating is not considered a "recreational activity." Therefore, an employer may terminate an employee for engaging in a romantic relationship with a co-worker without violating the statute.
Facts:
- Jess D. McCavitt was hired by Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation ("Swiss Re") in 1996 and held the position of an officer by 1999.
- In 1999, McCavitt began a personal, romantic dating relationship with Diane Butler, who was also an officer at Swiss Re.
- The relationship and time spent together occurred outside of working hours, off the employer's premises, and without using the employer's property.
- The relationship did not cause any negative repercussions for the professional responsibilities or accomplishments of either McCavitt or Butler.
- Swiss Re did not have a written anti-fraternization or anti-nepotism policy.
- McCavitt was passed over for a promotion and subsequently discharged from his employment primarily due to his romantic relationship with Butler.
Procedural Posture:
- Jess D. McCavitt sued Swiss Reinsurance America Corporation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging unlawful termination.
- Swiss Re filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The district court granted Swiss Re's motion to dismiss, holding that romantic dating is not a protected activity under New York Labor Law § 201-d.
- McCavitt, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's termination of an employee for romantically dating a co-worker violate New York Labor Law § 201-d, which prohibits discrimination based on an individual's "legal recreational activities outside work hours"?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. Terminating an employee for romantically dating a co-worker does not violate New York Labor Law § 201-d because romantic dating does not constitute a protected "recreational activity." As a federal court interpreting state law, this court is bound by the New York Appellate Division's decision in State v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which held that dating is not a recreational activity under the statute. There is no persuasive evidence that the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, would reach a different conclusion. The court also noted the district court's application of the noscitur a sociis canon of construction, which suggests that the general term "recreational activities" should be interpreted in light of the specific examples provided in the statute, such as sports, games, and hobbies, which do not encompass romantic dating.
Concurring - McLaughlin, J.
No. While the court is bound by existing state precedent to find that dating is not a protected activity, this result is regrettable. Judge McLaughlin concurs grudgingly, expressing hope that the New York Court of Appeals or the state legislature will revisit the issue. He argues that the legislature's primary intent was to protect employees' private lives from employer intrusion when their off-duty conduct does not affect job performance. It is repugnant to a free society that an employer can terminate an employee based on their romantic relationships without demonstrating any adverse impact on the business.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a narrow interpretation of New York Labor Law § 201-d, establishing that its protections for "recreational activities" do not extend to interpersonal relationships like dating. The case is a key example of federal court deference to state intermediate appellate court rulings on matters of state law, as required under the principles of the Erie doctrine. The ruling leaves employees in New York with limited protection against adverse employment actions based on their off-duty romantic relationships, placing the burden on the New York Court of Appeals or the state legislature to explicitly expand the statute's scope if such protection is desired.
