Abrams v. Department of Public Safety, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16490

Abrams, a Black DPS detective since 1986, repeatedly sought transfer to the Van from 2004–2009, but all eight Van recruits in that period were white.
The Van is an elite, on-call unit; selection is informal, based on demonstrated skills, with seniority and training as factors, not a formal application.
Two “Fit In” statements were made by Van selectors: Contre said Abrams “did not fit in,” and O’Hara said Payette would “fit in better” than Abrams, with Wakely noting malevolently that race could be a factor.
Abrams filed CHRO complaints beginning in 2007 alleging discrimination and retaliation; after 2010 reassignment to the Casino Unit and eventual return to Major Crimes, the district court granted summary judgment on discrimination and § 1983 claims, and a jury later held no Title VII retaliation in the Casino Unit transfer.
Abrams appeals the district court’s summary-judgment rulings on discrimination and § 1983 claims, the jury verdict on Title VII retaliation, and related evidentiary rulings; the court vacates in part and remands for further proceedings.
The court’s disposition includes affirming the Casino Unit retaliation judgment, vacating the discrimination rulings, and remanding for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discrimination prima facie and pretext	Abrams established prima facie discrimination; statements show pretext.	DPS offered legitimate non-discriminatory reasons; no pretext proven.	Close case; material questions of fact for a jury on pretext.
Admissibility and effect of Fit In statements	Fit In statements show race-driven pretext.	Statements are admissible and probative of pretext.	Statements are admissible and create a jury question on pretext.
Retaliation for Casino Unit assignment	Timing shows causation between CHRO activity and reassignment.	Temporal proximity alone insufficient for pretext; other evidence lacking.	Temporal proximity alone not enough; summary judgment on retaliation affirmed for now.
Qualified immunity as to § 1983 claims	Individual defendants may be liable under § 1983 for equal protection.	Qualified immunity applies; district court should decide on remand.	Remand for district court to conduct qualified-immunity analysis on § 1983 claims.
Evidence exclusion and trial rulings on retaliation claim	Exclusion of discrimination evidence prejudiced retaliation claim.	Discrimination evidence properly limited to support retaliation claim.	District court did not abuse discretion; admissibility rulings affirmed.

Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106 (2d Cir.2007) (retaliation requires causal link and pretext evidence)
Gorman-Bakos v. Cornell Coop. Extension of Schenectady County, 252 F.3d 545 (2d Cir.2001) (no bright-line rule; temporal proximity plus pretext evidence needed)
Bymie v. Town of Cromwell, Board of Education, 243 F.3d 93 (2d Cir.2001) (pretext analysis thresholds under McDonnell Douglas framework)
Patrick v. Ridge, 394 F.3d 311 (5th Cir.2004) (‘fit in’/not sufficiently suited as potential pretext for discrimination)