Goode v. Donohoe, No. 2:2012cv03982 - Document 68 (E.D.N.Y. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM & ORDER denying 49 Motion for Summary Judgment; For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry 50) is DENIED. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 11/2/2015. C/ECF (Valle, Christine)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Goode v. Donohoe Doc. 68 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------X DESHONDA R. GOODE, Plaintiff, -against- MEMORANDUM & ORDER 12-CV-3982(JS)(AKT) PATRICK R. DONAHUE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant. ------------------------------------X APPEARANCES For Plaintiff: Stewart Lee Karlin The Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C. 9 Murray Street, Suite 4W New York, NY 10007 For Defendant: Robert W. Schumacher, II, Esq. United States Attorney’s Office Eastern District of New York 610 Federal Plaza Central Islip, NY 11722 SEYBERT, District Judge: Plaintiff letter carrier for Deshonda the Goode United (“Plaintiff”), States Postal a Service former (the “USPS”), originally commenced this action pro se on August 9, 2012 against General asserting of defendant the claims United of Patrick States racial R. Donahue, Postal Service discrimination and the Postmaster (“Defendant”), retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. counsel. Currently pending Plaintiff has since retained before the Court is Defendant’s Dockets.Justia.com motion for summary judgment. (Docket Entry 49.) For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND1 Plaintiff female. (Goode is Decl., a forty-nine-year-old, Docket Entry 65, African-American ¶ 2.) This action arises out of her employment and subsequent termination as a letter carrier for the USPS. She was first hired on March 24, 2001 and worked at the post office in Hempstead, New York (the “Hempstead Post Office”) until her termination in June 2009.2 (Def.’s 56.1 Stmt., Docket Entry 51, ¶¶ 1, 3, 24.) In this action, Defendant maintains that the USPS terminated Plaintiff because of her poor attendance record and inability to work in a safe manner. Plaintiff disputes this, claiming that the postmaster of the Hempstead Post Office, Kevin Rynne (“Rynne”), discriminated against her on the basis of race and fabricated disciplinary charges in retaliation for Plaintiff having filed an administrative complaint against him alleging discrimination in November 2006. The following facts are drawn from the parties’ Local Civil Rule 56.1 Statements and their evidence in support. Any factual disputes will be noted. 1 Plaintiff’s first assignment was at the post office in East Meadow, New York for a ninety-day probationary, but she was transferred to the Hempstead Post Office after she passed her probationary period. (Goode Dep. Tr., Docket Entry 55, Ex. A at 24:7-12.) 2 2 Between 2001 and 2006, Plaintiff worked Hempstead Post Office with no disciplinary history. at the However, according to USPS employment records, during this time, she was involved in a motor vehicle accident and accidents” that resulted in injuries. three “industrial (See Def.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 11; DeRosa Decl., Docket Entry 52, at 23.) The USPS records state that Plaintiff was injured on April 12, 2001, December 21, 2001, and December 14, 2002. (See DeRosa Decl. Ex. A at 2.) The “cause of injury” for each incident states “Slip, Twist, Trip, No Falling,” “Other Manual Handling and Equipment,” and Fall/Slip On Stairway, Steps,” respectively. A at 2.) Plaintiff denies that she (DeRosa Decl. Ex. was involved in any accidents on April 12th or December 14, 2002, but does admit that she broke her finger and sprained her wrist by lifting a heavy box on December 21, 2001. (See Goode Decl. ¶ 30.) Plaintiff also admits that she was involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 24, 2006, but she maintains that she was rear ended Counterstmt. while ¶ 11.) sitting In at any a red event, light. it is (Pl.’s 56.1 undisputed that Plaintiff never had any disciplinary issues between 2001 and 2006, although she did receive additional driver training in Page numbers of declarations and exhibits referenced herein, refer to the page numbers supplied by the Electronic Case Filing system. 3 3 April 2006 accident. as a result of the February 2006 motor vehicle (Def.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 12.) Rynne became Office sometime in 2005. the postmaster of the Hempstead (Def.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 5.) Post Prior to and after Rynne became postmaster, Tom McGuiness (“McGuines”) was Plaintiff’s direct supervisor and he reported directly to Rynne. (Def.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 6.) first of two On June 21, 2005, Plaintiff filed the pre-complaints against Rynne Opportunity Employment (“EEO”) counselor.4 Entry 54, Ex. B at 18-20.) testified because that Rynne she filed allegedly an Equal (Cedeno Decl., Docket During her deposition, Plaintiff this was with complaint “[c]oming to alleging [her] harassment work station every day, stuffing [her] case with books so [she] couldn’t Plaintiff also filed pre-complaints with an EEO counselor in 2003 and 2004, which do not appear to be related to the allegations in this action. Plaintiff filed her first precomplaint on February 4, 2003. According to USPS employment records, Plaintiff alleged discrimination on the basis of “race,” “reprisal,” “sex,” and “disability,” and later withdrew the pre-complaint on July 1, 2003. (Cedeno Decl. Ex. B at 1314.) The records do not specify against whom the pre-complaint was filed, nor could Plaintiff remember any of the details of this EEO activity during her deposition. (Goode Dep. Tr., Docket Entry 55, 71-74.) Plaintiff again filed a pre-complaint on December 1, 2004. The USPS records indicate that Plaintiff redressed the alleged discrimination on the basis of “race,” “reprisal,” “sex,” and “disability” with respect to “duty hours” and “other assignment of duties,” and that she later withdrew this pre-complaint on February 15, 2015. (Cedeno Decl. Ex. B at 16.) However, again, the USPS records do not indicate who engaged in the alleged discriminatory conduct, and Plaintiff could not remember the details of this EEO activity during her deposition either. (Goode Dep. Tr. 69-71.) 4 4 carry them” and was doing “anything he could do to make [her] day horrible.” employment (Goode Dep. Tr. 67:19-22.) records, Plaintiff withdrew July 21, 2015 prior to mediation. According to USPS this complaint on (Cedeno Decl. Ex. B at 19.) Plaintiff filed the second pre-complaint against Rynne on November 7, 2006. (Cedeno Decl. Ex. B at 22-23.) During her deposition, Plaintiff testified that she filed this complaint because Rynne was again harassing her. Specifically, she stated that: “Mr. Rynne was harassing me that day. He was in my face calling me names, throwing my mail around. He was just in my face since the time I punched in at 8:00 in the morning until I was taken out in an ambulance.” (Goode Dep. Tr. 61:17-21.) On December 21, 2006, Plaintiff’s pre-complaint was settled after mediation. (See Cedeno Decl. Ex. D at 27-28.) Both Rynne and Plaintiff signed a “Settlement Form Agreement” that stated that “[t]he parties agree[d] to treat each other with dignity, mutual respect, and professionalism, both in the substance and style of their interactions and communications” and that they “enter[ed] into th[e] agreement as a direct result of the discussion that took place in the mediation sessions.” (Cedeno Decl. Ex. D at 1745.) However, Plaintiff alleges that Rynne “became mad due to the EEO complaint,” (Pl.’s 56.1 Counterstmt. ¶ 52), and continued “discriminating against [her] and harassing [her]” and 5 “further retaliated against [her]” as a result of the complaint, (Goode Decl. ¶ 14). For example, during her deposition, Plaintiff testified that Rynne starting making “smart comments” to her “every other day,” including calling her a “lazy black bitch” and saying that her hair was “nappy.” 63:4-65:2.) In a court-ordered (Goode Dep. Tr. interrogatory response, Plaintiff alleged that on November 7, 2007, Rynne told her to “[g]et [her] black ass back to work” and “was saying [her] black [was] lazy, [that she] d[id] not come back on time, [and that she was a] stupid ass.” 56 at 7.) (Schumacher Supp. Decl., Docket Entry Plaintiff also contends that after the 2006 EEO complaint was resolved, “Rynne started following [her] on [her] route every single day” in order to “form[ ] a paper trail,” and that “[t]his carriers.” was not something that [ ] happened to other (Goode Decl. ¶ 15.) Then, between November 28, 2007 and February 26, 2009, Plaintiff received seven separate disciplinary notices and/or suspensions for alleged constant post office safety rules. Exs. A-G.) street On June observations 9, of tardiness and violations of (See Rynne Decl., Docket Entry 53, 2009, Rynne Plaintiff, and (Def.’s McGuiness 56.1 conducted Stmt. ¶ 21), during which Rynne claims that he observed Plaintiff improperly make a U-turn and drive through an intersection with her side door open while she was not wearing her seatbelt, (Rynne Decl. 6 ¶ 18). A pre-disciplinary hearing was held on June 10, 2009, and Plaintiff was later issued a Notice of Removal (“NOR”) on June 24, 2009, charging her with several violations of the post office’s rules related to the June 9th incident and listing her prior violations (the “June 24th NOR”). (Rynne Decl. Ex. I.) On November 24, 2009, Plaintiff filed a formal EEO complaint alleging discrimination based on race and retaliation related to the June 24th NOR. (Def.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 33-34.) On October 28, 2010, an EEOC Administrative Law Judge issued a decision without a hearing, finding for the USPS, and holding that Plaintiff could not meet her burden of showing that she was discriminated against. (Def.’s 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 35.) On August 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant, asserting claims of racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Defendant now moves for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (Docket Entry 49.) This motion is fully briefed and currently pending before the Court. DISCUSSION I. Legal Standard Summary judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986); Celotex 7 Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). “In assessing the record to determine whether there is a genuine issue to be tried as to any material fact, the court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” McLee v. Chrysler Corp., 109 F.3d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 1997). “The burden of showing the absence of any genuine dispute as to a material fact rests on the party seeking summary judgment.” Id.; see also Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S. Ct. 1598, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1970). A genuine factual issue exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” 477 U.S. at 248. Anderson, To defeat summary judgment, “the non-movant must ‘set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256). “[M]ere speculation or conjecture as to the true nature of the facts” will not overcome a motion for summary judgment. Knight v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 804 F.2d 9, 12 (2d Cir. 1986); see also Williams v. Smith, 781 F.2d 319, 323 (2d Cir. 1986) (“Mere conclusory allegations or denials will not suffice.” (citation omitted)); Weinstock, 224 F.3d at 41 (“[U]nsupported allegations do not create a material issue of fact.”). 8 II. McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Framework Claims for racial discrimination or retaliation under Title VII are articulated analyzed by the using United the States burden-shifting Supreme Court framework in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). Cir. Ruiz v. Cnty. of Rockland, 609 F.3d 486, 491 (2d 2010). That framework requires a plaintiff to first establish a prima facie case, after which the burden shifts to the defendant reason for to the articulate adverse a legitimate, employment action. Coll., 521 F.3d 130, 138 (2d Cir. 2008). non-discriminatory Holcomb v. Iona Once the defendant provides such a reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to present competent evidence that the reasons offered by the defendants were not the true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. 371 F. App’x 115, 117 (2d Fleming v. MaxMara USA, Inc., Cir. 2010); Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ., 584 F.3d 487, 499 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), superseded on other grounds by N.Y.C. LOCAL L. NO. 85. With this framework in mind, the Court turns to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on each of Plaintiff’s claims. III. Defendant’s Motion Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims, arguing that Plaintiff can neither establish her prima 9 facie case nor terminating her discrimination prove that Defendant’s employment or was retaliation a stated pretext under the reason for for unlawful standards governing claims brought pursuant to Title VII. A. Racial Discrimination Under Title VII “Title individual with VII prohibits respect to his discrimination or her against compensation, any terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of, inter alia, such individual’s sex.” Kaytor v. Elec. Boat Corp., 609 F.3d 537, 546 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, and brackets omitted) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000–2(a)(1)). As previously noted, to survive summary judgment, Plaintiff first must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. To do so, Plaintiff must show that “(1) [s]he is a member of a protected class; (2) [s]he (3) [s]he was suffered qualified an adverse for the employment position action; [s]he and held; (4) the adverse action took place under circumstances giving rise to the inference of discrimination.” Ruiz v. Cnty. of Rockland, 609 F.3d 486, 492 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). “‘Although plaintiff’s burden at the prima facie stage is minimal, she must provide permit some a motive.’” competent rational evidence finder of that fact to would infer be a sufficient to discriminatory Ellis v. Century 21 Dep’t Stores, 975 F. Supp. 2d 244, 266 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) (brackets omitted) (quoting Dent v. 10 U.S. Tennis Ass’n, No. 08–CV–1533, 2011 WL 308417, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2011)). The first three elements of Plaintiff’s prima facie case are not in dispute. Plaintiff clearly is a member of a protected class, she suffered an adverse employment action when she was terminated, and Defendant does not argue that she was not qualified to be a letter carrier. However, Defendant argues that summary judgment should be granted on Plaintiff’s racial discrimination claim because she has not established the fourth element of her prima facie case--that is, that her termination took place under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. (Def.’s Br., Docket Entry 58, at 14-16.) The Court disagrees. An inference of discrimination “can be established in a variety of ways depending on the specific facts of the case.” White v. Andy Frain Servs., Inc., No. 12-CV-5868, 2014 WL 3896066, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2014) (citing Abdu–Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456, 468 (2d Cir. 2001); Chertkova v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 81, 91 (2d Cir. 1996)). inference A Title VII plaintiff may be able to establish an of discrimination by presenting evidence that demonstrates: (1) “‘actions or remarks made by decisionmakers that could be viewed as reflecting a discriminatory animus,’” id. (quoting Chertkova, 92 F.3d 11 at 91); (2) that she was “treated differently from other similarly situated employees,” id. (citing Abdu–Brisson, 239 F.3d at 468); or (3) that she “was replaced by someone outside [her] protected class,” Zimmerman v. Assocs. First Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 376, 381 (2d Cir. 2001) (citations omitted). However, the plaintiff “‘must point to facts that suggest’ that the adverse action was motivated, at least in part, by discriminatory animus.” Kamrowski v. Morrison Mgmt. WL Specialist, No. 05-CV-9234, 2010 3932354, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2010) (quoting Kalsi v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 62 F. Supp. 2d 745, 753 (E.D.N.Y. 1998), aff’d, 189 F.3d 461 (2d Cir. 1999)). Here, Plaintiff contends that an inference of discrimination may be drawn because (1) Rynne made remarks to her that could be viewed as reflecting a discriminatory animus, and (2) several Caucasian mail carriers violated post office rules or had motor vehicle accidents, but were not disciplined as Plaintiff was. 8.) (See Pl.’s Opp. Br., Docket Entry 63, at 3- As explained below, Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination based on Rynne’s alleged racial remarks, but not based on disparate treatment. The Court will first address Plaintiff’s claim of disparate treatment. “A showing of disparate treatment--that is, a showing that an employer treated plaintiff ‘less favorably than a similarly situated employee outside [her] protected group’--is a 12 recognized method of raising an inference of discrimination for the purposes of making out a prima facie case.” Ruiz, 609 F.3d at 493 (quoting Mandell v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 379 (2d Cir. 2003)). Here, Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment. In support, Plaintiff submits a conclusory declaration stating that at least six of her fellow letter carriers violated post office safety rules or had motor vehicles accidents and were not punished as she was. (Goode Decl. ¶¶ 21-24.) any personal Plaintiff does not identify how she has knowledge that these incidents occurred, she submits no testimony from these letter carriers, and she also has failed to disciplinary documentary submit history. evidence any In evidence contrast, demonstrating regarding Defendant that the their has prior produced Hempstead Post Office did in fact discipline letter carriers of all races. (See Rynne Decl. Ex. J.) Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met her prima facie burden in this regard. See Holcomb, 521 F.3d at 137 (“Even in the discrimination context, however, a plaintiff must provide more than conclusory allegations to resist a motion for summary judgment.”). Nonetheless, Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination based on her testimony that Rynne made remarks to discriminatory her that animus. could be viewed Specifically, 13 as during reflecting her a deposition, Plaintiff testified that after she and Rynne settled her 2006 EEO pre-complaint against him, he starting making “smart comments” to her “every other day,” including calling her a “lazy black bitch” and saying that her hair was “nappy.” Dep. Tr. 63:4-65:2.) (Goode In a court-ordered interrogatory response, Plaintiff alleged that on November 7, 2007, Rynne told her to “[g]et [her] black ass back to work” and “was saying [her] black ass [was] lazy, [that she] d[id] not come back on time, [and that she was a] stupid ass.” 7.) Defendant has not Plaintiff’s testimony. Plaintiff’s prior occasion an of (Schumacher Supp. Decl., Ex. A. at submitted any evidence rebutting Rather, Defendant argues that because interrogatory alleged response discriminatory indicated remark, she only one should be bound to this one instance, which would be insufficient standing alone to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. (Def.’s Reply Br., Docket Entry 67, at 4.) Defendant contends that in the declaration Defendants’ summary manufacture issues including new she judgment of fact allegations names due to [her] race.” original).) during her has submitted motion to that survive Rynne only “an summary called to effort to judgment” by her “derogatory (Def.’s Reply Br. at 4 (alteration in The Court disagrees. deposition is opposition that Rynne As noted, Plaintiff testified repeatedly made derogatory comments to her, including calling her a “lazy black bitch,” and 14 it is well settled that “‘[a]n inference of discrimination may be drawn by a showing that the employer criticized the plaintiff’s performance in ethnically degrading terms . . . .’” Smalls v. Allstate Ins. Co., 396 F. Supp. 2d 364, 371 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (alteration in original) (quoting Hunter v. St. Francis Hosp., 281 F. Supp. 2d 534, 542 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); see also Kaur v. N.Y. City Health & Hospitals Corp., 688 F. Supp. 2d 317, 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) comments that membership in (“[W]here draw a a decision-makers direct protected link class ‘repeatedly between and an a make plaintiff’s adverse employment action’ can an inference of discriminatory animus be drawn.” (quoting Costantin v. N.Y. City Fire Dep’t, No. 06-CV-4631, 2009 WL 3053851, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 22, 2009)). Accordingly, Plaintiff has establish a prima facie case of discrimination because there is evidence in the record that Rynne made derogatory remarks to Plaintiff that were directly related to her job performance. In sum, Plaintiff has establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on Rynne’s allege derogatory remarks, but she has treated Court failed to differently will now produce than turn sufficient similarly to situated Plaintiff’s retaliation under Title VII. 15 evidence prima that she employees. facie case was The of B. Retaliation Under Title VII Title against an activity, VII prohibits employee an employer she has “oppos[ing] namely, because any practice from engaged retaliating in made protected an unlawful employment practice [under Title VII], or because [she] has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [Title VII].” U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a). 42 To meet the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, Plaintiff must show that: “(1) [she] was engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer was aware of that activity; (3) [she] suffered an adverse connection employment between employment action.” the action; and protected (4) there activity and was the a causal adverse See Reed v. A.W. Lawrence & Co., 95 F.3d 1170, 1178 (2d Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has met her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation. not in dispute. The first three elements are Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to set forth evidence establishing the fourth element of her prima facie case--namely, that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and her termination. 18.) Defendant specifically argues that (Def.’s Br. at 16an inference of retaliation cannot arise because there is no temporal proximity between the EEO pre-complaint Plaintiff filed in 2006 and her 16 termination in 2009. (Def.’s Br. at 17-18.) The Court disagrees. It is true that “[i]n order for a court to ‘accept mere temporal proximity protected activity sufficient evidence between and of an an employer’s adverse causality knowledge employment to establish a action prima of as facie case,’ the temporal proximity must be ‘very close.’” Varno v. Jefferson 2015 Cnty. Dep’t of Planning, No. 11-CV-0803, WL 5602965, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2015) (quoting Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273, 121 S. Ct. 1508, 1511, 149 L. Ed. 2d 509 (2001)). is not necessary Roosevelt Union to Free However, “temporal proximity itself survive Sch. summary Dist., judgment.” No. 10-CV-5612, Curcio v. 2012 WL 3646935, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2012) (collecting cases). “[A] plaintiff may also demonstrate the causal connection by showing a ‘pattern of antagonism’ over the intervening period” between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory act. Id. (quoting Chan v. NYU Downtown Hosp., No. 03-CV-3003, 2004 WL 213024, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2004)). Here, according to Plaintiff, after she filed her 2006 pre-complaint against Rynne, he began following her on her route every day in order to the lay the foundation for her termination in retaliation for the 2006 complaint. Defendant dismisses this allegation 17 (Goode Decl. ¶ 15.) as uncorroborated by supporting evidence. However, there is evidence that Plaintiff’s disciplinary changed drastically after she filed the 2006 complaint. Between 2001 and 2006, Plaintiff worked at the Hempstead Post Office with virtually no disciplinary history. Although she was involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 24, 2006 (prior to the 2006 complaint), for which she received additional driving training, Plaintiff maintains that she was rear ended while sitting at a red light. Counterstmt. ¶ 11.) (Pl.’s 56.1 Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that there are triable issues of fact with respect to the presence of a causal link between her 2006 complaint and her subsequent termination in 2009. C. Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory Reasons and Pretext Defendant next asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Title VII claims of discrimination and retaliation because it has come forward with legitimate, nondiscriminatory show are reasons pretextual. for its The actions Court that Plaintiff disagrees. cannot Specifically, Defendant asserts that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Plaintiff because she was constantly late to work safety. Court and violated numerous post office rules regarding After careful analysis of the record, however, the finds that a rational factfinder 18 could conclude that Plaintiff’s termination arose from intentional discrimination based on her allegations that Rynne made racially insensitive remarks regarding Plaintiff’s job performance and the sharp increase in disciplinary actions following Plaintiff’s EEO precomplaint against Rynne. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion summary judgment (Docket Entry 50) is DENIED. SO ORDERED. /s/ JOANNA SEYBET_______ Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J. Dated: November 2 , 2015 Central Islip, New York 19 for
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
