Opinion ID: 217804
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State and City Claims

Text: Although we conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment to the Defendants on Brief’s federal claims, his state and city law claims are arguably governed by different legal standards. See Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268, 278 (2d Cir. 2009) (“[C]laims under the City [Human Rights Law] must be reviewed independently from and more liberally than their federal and state counterparts[.]”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Phillips v. City of New York, 884 N.Y.S.2d 369, 373 (1st Dep’t 2009) (“The State [Human Rights Law] provides protections broader than the Americans with Disabilities Act[.]”). Appellees suggested at oral argument that while the determination of disability may be different under state and municipal law on the one hand, and under federal law on the other, the analysis of accommodation is the same. There may be some merit to this argument with respect to Brief’s state law claim, see Phillips, 884 -7- N.Y.S.2d at 373 n.3 (“[U]nlike the ADA, the State HRL definition of disability has no requirement that a physical or mental impairment must substantially limit one or more major life activities of an individual.”), but it appears unavailing as to Brief’s city law claim, see id. at 377 (holding that the NYCHRL must be analyzed separately given its “very different conception and statutory architecture of ‘reasonable accommodation’”). Nevertheless, because these issues have not been fully briefed and argued and because the law of New York in regard to relative state and federal disability claim analysis is still developing, we see no reason to decide them in this appeal, especially considering the district court’s limited analysis of Brief’s non-federal claims. Instead, in the absence of any continuing basis for federal question jurisdiction, we leave these issues to the parties to pursue in state court if the plaintiff seeks to reinstate his state and city law claims in that forum. See Giordano v. City of New York, 274 F.3d 740, 754 (2d Cir. 2001) (“[I]n the absence of any remaining federal claims, the appropriate analytic framework to be applied to discrimination claims based on a ‘disability’ as defined by New York state and municipal law is a question best left to the courts of the State of New York.”). We therefore VACATE the district court’s judgment with respect to Brief’s New York State and City law claims and REMAND with instructions that the district court dismiss these claims without prejudice. We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment in all other respects. FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK -8-