Federal Court Denies Request to Seal FDNY EMS Officer’s Disciplinary History in Discrimination Suit

A federal judge has denied a request by an FDNY EMS officer to seal portions of a prior court opinion that discussed her disciplinary record. The ruling, issued October 15, 2025, by U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman, came in Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, et al. v. City of New York, a long-running discrimination and civil rights case involving FDNY’s promotional practices for EMS officers

The plaintiffs—EMS Lieutenant Renae Mascol, EMS Deputy Chief Luis Rodriguez, and their union, Local 3621—filed suit alleging that the City of New York, the Fire Department (FDNY), and the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS) engaged in discriminatory promotional practices that adversely affected women, minorities, and employees with disabilities. The lawsuit challenged FDNY’s use of a subjective, interview-based system for promotions above the rank of lieutenant rather than a civil service examination process, which plaintiffs claimed had a disparate impact on non-white and female EMS officers.

In a September 30, 2025 opinion, Judge Liman granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. He dismissed a number of claims, including those against FDNY and DCAS, but allowed certain individual claims to proceed—most notably, Mascol’s claim of gender-based disparate treatment and both plaintiffs’ disparate impact claims alleging racial and gender discrimination under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Following that ruling, Mascol sought to have portions of the September 30 opinion sealed, arguing that references to her disciplinary history should remain confidential. The court rejected that request, emphasizing the strong presumption of public access to judicial documents. Judge Liman cited long-standing Second Circuit precedent that materials submitted in connection with summary judgment “should not remain under seal absent the most compelling reasons.” He noted that Mascol’s disciplinary history had already been made public in earlier filings and that she had relied upon that same history as part of her discrimination claims.

Judge Liman wrote that while “the privacy interests of innocent third parties should weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation,” Mascol was not a third party and had “affirmatively put the information at issue by predicating her claims on it.” Because the record was already public and central to her case, the court found no justification for continued sealing and denied the motion.

The court’s order directs the Clerk of Court to close the sealing motion, leaving the September 30 opinion—and the disciplinary history discussed in it—fully available to the public record.

Here are copies of both decisions: