13‐352‐cv
Godlewska v. Human Development Association
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 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 8th day of April, two thousand fourteen.
PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges,
RICHARD K. EATON,
Judge.*
____________________________________________
ELZBIETA GODLEWSKA, KRYSTYNA
BIELAWSKA, BARBARA HATALA, BARBARA
PILCH, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs‐Appellants,
BOLESLAW PRYZGODA,
Appellant,
*Judge Richard K. Eaton, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by
designation.
‐v.‐ No. 13‐352‐cv
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION,
INC., aka HDA, YECHILA GRUENWALD,
individually and as Executive Director of HDA,
aka YECHIEL GRUENWALD, ZVI
KESTENBAUM, MARINA VOSKOBOYNIKO,
GOLDA POKHIS, aka OLGA POKHIS,
MARGARARITA ZILBERT, JANE DOE, aka
FRIEDMAN, JANE DOE, 1‐10, JOHN DOE, 1‐10,
being fictitious names, their true identities not yet
known to the Plaintiffs, CITY OF NEW YORK
HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION,
CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants‐Appellees.
____________________________________________
FOR APPELLANTS: ROBERT WISNIEWSKI, Robert Wisniewski P.C., New
York, NY.
FOR APPELLEES: BENJAMIN WELIKSON, Assistant Corporation
Counsel (Andrea O’Connor, Francis F. Caputo, on the
brief), for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel,
New York, NY.
____________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Joan M. Azrack, Magistrate Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and
hereby is AFFIRMED.
2
Appellants challenge an order and judgment by the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Azrack, U.S.M.J.) finding the New
York City Human Resources Administration (“HRA”) and the City of New York
(collectively, “Municipal Defendants”) not to be Appellants’ joint employer and
accordingly granting Appellees’ cross‐motion for summary judgment on that
issue. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural
history, and issues on appeal.
Having reviewed the factors set forth in Carter v. Dutchess Community
College, 735 F.2d 8, 12 (2d Cir. 1984), and Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61,
72 (2d Cir. 2003), as useful for assessing the economic reality of a putative
employment relationship, we find based on these factors and the totality of the
circumstances that there is not an employment relationship between the
Appellants and the Municipal Defendants.
For this reason the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
3