Staten Island Judge Defeats All but One Claim in Harassment, Retaliation Suit
A federal court has dismissed all but one claim in a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Staten Island Judge Judith McMahon: that she transferred a court clerk in retaliation for reporting her alleged misconduct by making secret recordings.
August 26, 2019 at 05:05 PM
4 minute read
A federal court has dismissed all but one claim in a discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Staten Island Judge Judith McMahon: that she transferred a court clerk in retaliation for reporting her alleged misconduct by making secret recordings.
U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York on Aug. 23 dismissed the bulk of a lawsuit filed by plaintiff Michael J. Pulizotto, who claimed that he faced anti-gay harassment and retaliation from McMahon and others in the court system.
In his lawsuit, Pulizotto alleged that McMahon, formerly the administrative judge for civil matters on Staten Island and the wife of Staten Island District Attorney Michael McMahon, and courthouse employees retaliated against Pulizotto and harassed him because he turned over evidence of corruption, in the form of secret recordings he made, to the inspector general and to federal prosecutors at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.
McMahon was administrative judge for both criminal and civil matters until 2015, when Michael McMahon announced that he was running for district attorney. At that point, Judith McMahon's role was altered to give her administrative duties over civil matters only, which was intended to avoid the appearance of any conflicts of interest.
But Pulizotto alleged that after Michael McMahon was elected district attorney, Judith McMahon intervened in courthouse business that pertained to criminal matters—at times on her husband's behalf.
The suit alleged that Pulizotto, once chief clerk, was transferred to a different office, and given fewer responsibilities, after word of his recordings got out.
A ruling on a defense motion to dismiss came Aug. 23. While Castel held that the majority of Pulizotto's claims could not pass legal muster, the sole remaining claim had potential since it was alleged that Pulizotto's transfer to a different office happened in close proximity to his reporting of the alleged corruption.
"As the complaint does not allege when McMahon knew of disclosures to the United States Attorney's office, the court cannot determine if the disclosure is close in time to Pulizotto's transfer on September 7, 2017," Castel wrote in the his opinion.
"Nevertheless, because the job transfer claim alleges disclosures to both the United States Attorney's Office and IG, and McMahon does not challenge that her knowledge of Pulizotto's reports to the IG are close in time to his transfer … the job transfer claim, will not be dismissed," Castel added.
Ben B. Rubinowitz, managing partner at Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf in New York City, represents McMahon, and said McMahon was grateful for the decision.
"It is unfortunate that a clerk of the court would surreptitiously and illegally audio tape a judge in her chambers for an extended period of time and use his own improper conduct as a springboard for making false allegations and bringing a meritless action," Rubinowitz said in an email. "His conduct is violative of the law and his ethical obligations as an attorney. Conversely, Judge McMahon did nothing improper and remains one of the finest judges on the bench. She is extremely pleased that Judge Castel recognized that the vast majority of the allegations set forth against her had no merit as a matter of law in this very early stage of the litigation and to the extent Pulizotto wishes to continue this frivolous claim against her, she looks forward to the complete dismissal of these baseless claims in all respects."
Alan Serrins of Serrins & Associates in New York City represents Pulizotto and also did not respond to a request for comment Monday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: Uber Cannot Be Held Vicariously Liable for Driver's Alleged Negligent Conduct
US Courts Announce Closures in Observance of Jimmy Carter National Mourning Day
2 minute readClass Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1California’s New Deepfake Laws: Banning the Deception
- 2MoFo Doubles Down on Private Equity in Asia
- 3The Value of ComFed for New Lawyers (And Not So New Ones)
- 4The 'Nonprofit Killer Bill': Separating Fear From Fact on HR 9495
- 5As U.S. Firms Gain Market Share, Freshfields Maintains Top Spot in European M&A Rankings
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250