Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Burroughs Corp. v. Kramarsky

666 F.2d 27

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1981-11-24
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: For the reasons stated today in our opinion on rehearing in Delta Airlines, Inc. v. Kramarsky, 666 F.2d 21, we vacate our original decision on this appeal, reported at 650 F.2d 1308, holding that § 514(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (1976), did not preempt New York’s Human Rights Law, N.Y.Exec.Law § 296 (McKinney 1972 & Supp. 1980-1981). The judgment of the district court enjoining enforcement of the Human Rights Law with respect to plaintiff’s employee benefit plans is affirmed. For the reasons stated in our original opinion, plaintiff’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is remanded for such further consideration as may be appropriate.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Burroughs Corp. v. Kramarsky. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
BURROUGHS CORP. v. KRAMARSKY,666 F.2d 27(2nd Cir. 1981)
BURROUGHS CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. WERNER H. KRAMARSKY, AS
COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.
No. 17, Docket 80-7127.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Originally Argued September 25, 1980.
Decided May 11, 1981.
Petition for Rehearing filed June 9, 1981.
Decided November 24, 1981.
Ann Thacher Anderson, Gen. Counsel, State Division of Human Rights, New York City, for defendants-appellants.

William E. McKnight, Shelby D. Green, Nixon, Hargrave, Devans Doyle, Rochester, N.Y., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before MOORE and KEARSE, Circuit Judges, and TENNEY,fn*District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] For the reasons stated today in our opinion on rehearing inDelta Airlines, Inc. v. Kramarsky,666 F.2d 21, we vacate our original decision on this appeal, reported at650 F.2d 1308, holding that § 514(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,29 U.S.C. § 1144(a) (1976), did not preempt New York's Human Rights Law, N.Y.Exec.Law § 296 (McKinney 1972 Supp. 1980-1981).

[2] The judgment of the district court enjoining enforcement of the Human Rights Law with respect to plaintiff's employee benefit plans is affirmed. For the reasons stated in our original opinion, plaintiff's claim under42 U.S.C. § 1983is remanded for such further consideration as may be appropriate.Page 28
  1. Honorable Charles H. Tenney, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. ↩