Alvarado v. Jeffrey, Inc.
149 F. Supp. 3d 486
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Eduardo Alvarado, a gay Hispanic salesperson, worked at Jeffrey (90% owned by Nordstrom) from 2003 until July 12, 2012; he alleged racial and sexual-orientation discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation.
- Beginning in 2011 Alvarado had repeated conflicts with co-worker Keisha Daniel and others: following him on the sales floor, a remark about "arroz con polio" (interpreted as racially tinged), insults, and two incidents that escalated to public disputes. Multiple Facebook posts by Daniel and verbal confrontations were documented.
- Management (Seery, Gonzalez, Kalinsky) conducted investigations; Daniel and others received verbal or written reprimands at various times; Alvarado filed a written complaint with Nordstrom in January 2012, which Nordstrom investigated and closed.
- Alvarado received a written reprimand in March 2012 for the January 18 and January 28 incidents; he alleges the reprimand and management’s handling were retaliatory and part of discriminatory treatment.
- He sought an adverse inference for alleged spoliation of surveillance video; defendants contend no such relevant video existed. The court addressed claims under Section 1981, NYHRL, and NYCHRL on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation / adverse inference | Jeffrey negligently failed to preserve surveillance video of Jan. 18, 2012 incident; adverse inference warranted | No evidence that surveillance video of that area/event ever existed | No adverse inference; plaintiff failed to show video ever existed |
| Hostile work environment (§1981, NYHRL) | Repeated insults, racial/orientation taunts ("arroz con polio", "little bitch", "queens"), Facebook posts, verbal attacks created a hostile environment | Incidents were isolated, not severe or pervasive; many acts were non-discriminatory or directed at others too | Claim fails: conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive to be objectively abusive |
| Constructive discharge (§1981, NYHRL) | Workplace intolerable due to hostile environment and manager Seery’s comment that he could leave | Hostile-environment claim fails; Seery’s remark was too mild to establish intolerable conditions | Claim fails: no evidence employer deliberately created intolerable discriminatory conditions |
| Retaliation (§1981, NYHRL) | After protected complaint, employer issued reprimand and failed to remediate; temporal proximity supports causation | Reprimand was a legitimate, non-retaliatory discipline for specific incidents; plaintiff cannot show pretext or but-for causation | Plaintiff proved adverse action (reprimand) but failed to show retaliatory motive or pretext; retaliation claim fails |
| NYCHRL discrimination / retaliation | Broader city-law standard should sustain claims for less-severe conduct | Conduct was petty slights; employer took prompt corrective steps when aware; no proof employer knew of some comments | NYCHRL claims fail: statements were trivial and employer either acted or had no notice; temporal proximity insufficient once legitimate reasons offered |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation materiality standard)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (hostile work environment factors)
- McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., 482 F.3d 184 (materiality for summary judgment)
- Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (subjective and objective hostile-environment test)
- Demoret v. Zegarelli, 451 F.3d 140 (hostile work environment elements)
- Richardson v. New York State Dep’t of Correctional Serv., 180 F.3d 426 (severity/pervasiveness analysis)
- Schwapp v. Town of Avon, 118 F.3d 106 (isolated incidents insufficient for hostile environment)
- Ferraro v. Kellwood Co., 440 F.3d 96 (constructive discharge/hostile-environment framework)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (retaliation prima facie test)
- Millea v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154 (reprimand can be materially adverse)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (NYCHRL separate, broader analysis)