## Facts

- Pamela A. Postema, a woman, began working as a professional baseball umpire and reached the highest minor-league level (AAA) in 1983.
- During her AAA career, Postema received special assignments and honors, and several Major League Baseball (MLB) managers praised her performance.
- Postema alleged she was subjected to repeated sexual harassment and sex-based hostility while working in professional baseball.
- Postema alleged that two officials associated with the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs (AL) publicly stated she would not be hired as an MLB umpire unless she was “better than” male umpires.
- In October 1989, the Baseball Office for Umpire Development (BOUD) assembled a list of AAA umpires for possible MLB consideration and asked the AL whether it was interested in hiring any of them.
- The AL responded that it was not interested, citing a lack of vacancies.
- In November 1989, the Triple-A Alliance of Professional Baseball Clubs (Triple-A) terminated Postema, allegedly because the AL and National League of Professional Baseball Clubs (NL) had no interest in hiring her for MLB umpiring work.
- Postema sued the NL, AL, BOUD, and Triple-A for sex discrimination under Title VII and New York Executive Law § 296, and also asserted a New York common-law restraint-of-trade claim.
- The AL moved for summary judgment on the Title VII claim, arguing (among other points) that it did not hire any umpires during the relevant period and was not Postema’s employer; it also sought dismissal of the jury-demand and damages requests under federal and state law and dismissal of the restraint-of-trade claim.

## Issues

1. Whether Postema produced enough evidence—despite the AL’s claim that it hired no umpires during the period at issue—to allow a reasonable inference of sex discrimination under Title VII.
2. Whether Title VII can reach a defendant that is not the plaintiff’s direct employer when that defendant allegedly controlled or materially affected the plaintiff’s employment opportunities.
3. Whether Postema could seek a jury trial and compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII based on the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a case filed after the Act but involving earlier conduct.
4. Whether Postema’s New York Human Rights Law claim, and her requests for a jury trial and punitive damages under that statute, stated a viable claim for relief.
5. Whether Postema’s allegations stated a cognizable New York common-law restraint-of-trade claim.

## Decision

- The court denied the AL’s motion for summary judgment on Postema’s Title VII discrimination claim, finding the record sufficient at this stage to allow the claim to proceed.
- The court declined, at the motion stage, to strike Postema’s jury demand and her requests for compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII based on the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
- The court allowed Postema’s New York Human Rights Law discrimination claim to proceed, while limiting relief to the extent New York law did not permit certain requested remedies (including punitive damages).
- The court dismissed Postema’s New York common-law restraint-of-trade claim for failure to state a claim.
- The motions were granted in part and denied in part.

## Legal Principles

- On summary judgment, the court asks whether the evidence—viewed in the nonmovant’s favor—permits a reasonable factfinder to infer discriminatory intent; direct evidence (including sex-based decision rules) can defeat summary judgment even when comparative hiring proof is disputed.
- A Title VII claim is not always confined to the entity that issued the paycheck; liability may extend to a nonemployer that allegedly interfered with, controlled, or substantially affected the plaintiff’s access to employment opportunities.
- The court (at this stage of the litigation) permitted a jury-trial demand and claims for compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII based on the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
- Under New York Executive Law § 296, a plaintiff may plead a sex-discrimination claim based on disparate treatment and hostile working conditions; however, the availability of requested remedies depends on what the statute authorizes.
- A New York common-law restraint-of-trade claim requires more than allegations that defendants acted discriminatorily against an individual employee; the plaintiff must plead a legally cognizable restraint affecting competition in a manner recognized by the doctrine.

## Conclusion

In Postema v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, the court rejected the American League’s attempt to end the Title VII case on summary judgment, allowing Postema to proceed on her claims that sex-based standards and related conduct blocked her access to MLB umpiring work and contributed to her termination. The court also permitted her jury-trial and damages requests under Title VII at that stage under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, allowed the New York Human Rights Law claim to go forward subject to limits on remedies under state law, and dismissed the common-law restraint-of-trade count for failure to state a claim.


Postema v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 799 F. Supp. 1475 (1992)