22-1251

Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION 

TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS 

GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S 

LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH 

THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN 

ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY 

CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT 

REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 

held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 

City of New York, on the 3rd day of June, two thousand twenty-four. 

PRESENT: 

DENNIS JACOBS,

RICHARD J. SULLIVAN,

MYRNA PÉREZ,

Circuit Judges. 

_____________________________________

NAFEESA SYEED, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. No. 22-1251

BLOOMBERG L.P.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_____________________________________
2 

For Plaintiff-Appellant: NIALL MACGIOLLABHUI, Law Office of 

Niall MacGiollabhui, New York, NY. 

For Defendant-Appellee: ELISE M. BLOOM, Proskauer Rose LLP, New 

York, NY (Allison L. Martin, Proskauer 

Rose LLP, New York, NY, Mark W. Batten, 

Proskauer Rose LLP, Boston, MA, on the 

brief).

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of New York (Gregory H. Woods, Judge). 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the May 10, 2022 judgment of the district 

court is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings. 

Nafeesa Syeed appeals from a judgment of the district court dismissing her 

claims brought under the New York City Human Rights Law (the “NYCHRL”) 

and the New York State Human Rights Law (the “NYSHRL”) against Bloomberg 

L.P., her former employer. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and 

record of the prior proceedings, which we described more fully in our prior 

opinion certifying certain legal questions to the New York Court of Appeals. See 

Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P., 58 F.4th 64 (2d Cir. 2023). 

On appeal, Syeed argues that the district court erred in holding that job 

applicants who do not reside or work in New York City or State cannot sue 
3 

employers under the NYCHRL or NYSHRL for failing to hire or promote them 

into positions located in the City or State. Because this issue was an important 

and unsettled question of New York law, we certified to the New York Court of 

Appeals the following question:

Whether a nonresident plaintiff not yet employed in 

New York City or State satisfies the impact requirement 

of the New York City Human Rights Law or the New 

York State Human Rights Law if the plaintiff pleads and 

later proves that an employer deprived the plaintiff of a 

New York City- or State-based job opportunity on 

discriminatory grounds.

Id. at 71. 

In an opinion filed on March 14, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals 

answered the certified question in the affirmative. See Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 

20, --- N.E.3d ----, 2024 WL 1097279, at *2 (N.Y. Mar. 14, 2024). Specifically, the 

court held that “the New York City and New York State Human Rights Laws each 

protect nonresidents who are not yet employed in the city or state but who 

proactively sought an actual city- or state-based job opportunity.” Id. at *1.

This answer to our certified question contradicts the district court’s reasons 

for dismissing Syeed’s claims and requires vacatur of that judgment. See J. App’x 

at 104 (dismissing Syeed’s claims because she did not reside or work in New York 

City or State). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and 
4 

the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the 

New York Court of Appeals and this order. We thank the New York Court of 

Appeals for its assistance in resolving this unsettled question of New York law. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court