Alvarado v. Nordstrom, Inc.
685 F. App'x 4
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Eduardo Alvarado, a Jeffrey, Inc. employee, sued Nordstrom/Jeffrey alleging racial and sexual-orientation hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL after workplace incidents in 2011–2012.
- The hostile-environment claims rested primarily on three comments by three coworkers over ~one year and other alleged combative conduct by a coworker (Keisha Daniel).
- After internal complaints and an altercation with manager Josh Gonzales, Alvarado received a 2012 written reprimand; he contends this reprimand was retaliatory and discriminatorily applied compared to Daniel.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on most claims, but the Second Circuit reviewed de novo.
- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of Alvarado’s Section 1981 and NYSHRL hostile-work-environment, retaliation, and constructive-discharge claims, but vacated and remanded Alvarado’s NYCHRL retaliation claim for factfinding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment under §1981/NYSHRL (race & sexual orientation) | Three coworkers’ comments and ongoing harassment were severe/pervasive enough to alter conditions of employment | Incidents were isolated, not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and some conduct was not race-motivated | Affirmed: incidents not sufficiently severe or pervasive to state §1981/NYSHRL claim |
| Retaliation under §1981/NYSHRL (written reprimand) | Written reprimand was pretextual and motivated by retaliation after he filed an Internal Review; Daniel, who engaged in similar conduct, was treated differently | Alvarado and Daniel are not sufficiently similar comparators; reprimand followed more aggressive conduct toward manager | Affirmed: plaintiff failed to prove but-for causation or sufficient comparator evidence |
| Constructive discharge (derivative of failed §1981/NYSHRL claims) | Alleged intolerable working conditions forced resignation | Underlying discrimination/hostile-environment claims fail | Affirmed: constructive-discharge claim fails with underlying claims |
| Retaliation under NYCHRL (written reprimand) | Disparate treatment and infrequent use of written reprimands at workplace create a triable issue whether retaliation played a role | Employer argues reprimand was non-retaliatory and consistent with discipline | Vacated & remanded: under broader NYCHRL standard, jury could find retaliation played some role; factual question for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby, 726 F.3d 119 (2d Cir.) (summary-judgment review standard)
- Tolbert v. Smith, 790 F.3d 427 (2d Cir.) (NYSHRL and Title VII hostile-environment standards align)
- Turley v. ISG Lackawanna, Inc., 774 F.3d 140 (2d Cir.) (similarity of Title VII and §1981 substantive standards)
- Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir.) (prior derogatory comments may support inference of bias by same actor)
- Howley v. Town of Stratford, 217 F.3d 141 (2d Cir.) (single severe verbal incident can meet hostile-environment threshold depending on context)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir.) (retaliation claims analyzed under Title VII principles)
- Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir.) (but-for causation for retaliation)
- Millea v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir.) (written reprimand can be materially adverse in some circumstances)
- Fincher v. Depository Tr. & Clearing Corp., 604 F.3d 712 (2d Cir.) (constructive-discharge claim depends on viability of discrimination claims)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.) (NYCHRL standard: show treated less well; employer may prevail if only petty slight)
- Ya-Chen Chen v. City Univ. of N.Y., 805 F.3d 59 (2d Cir.) (summary judgment under NYCHRL proper only if retaliation played no role as a matter of law)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hamilton Beach/Proctor Silex, Inc., 473 F.3d 450 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for spoliation sanctions)