Antrobus v. New York City Department of Sanitation
704 F. App'x 27
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Andre Antrobus, a DSNY employee proceeding pro se, sued under Title VII alleging hostile work environment, race and national-origin discrimination, failure to promote, and retaliation based on complaints filed in 2004–2010.
- District court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granted summary judgment for the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY). Antrobus appealed.
- Many alleged verbal incidents were assertedly “egregious” but occurred outside the Title VII limitations period; only some conduct fell within the limitations window.
- Antrobus claimed disparate treatment for being required to work holidays and pointed to denials of leave in 2010 as retaliatory acts following his prior complaints.
- Antrobus conceded he never applied for promotion and acknowledged many employees remain in the same position for decades.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment | Verbal incidents created hostile environment | Most incidents were time‑barred; no timely, related conduct showing discrimination | Granted for DSNY — time‑barred incidents cannot independently support claim; no continuing violation shown |
| Discrimination (race/national origin) | Verbal incidents and differential holiday assignments show disparate treatment | Incidents outside limitations; others (holidays) affected multiple employees similarly | Granted for DSNY — untimely incidents; no proof similarly situated employees were treated better |
| Retaliation | Denial of leave in 2010 was retaliation for prior complaints | Leave denial resulted from employer’s effort to address improperly documented absences | Granted for DSNY — plaintiff failed to show the complaints were a substantial reason for adverse actions |
| Failure to promote | Denied promotion despite long service | Never applied for promotion; many employees stayed in post long term | Granted for DSNY — plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case |
Key Cases Cited
- McPherson v. Coombe, 174 F.3d 276 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Sousa v. Marquez, 702 F.3d 124 (2d Cir.) (summary judgment standard under Rule 56)
- Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg’l Transp. Auth., 743 F.3d 11 (2d Cir.) (continuing-violation doctrine analysis)
- McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., 609 F.3d 70 (2d Cir.) (limitations and linking late acts to earlier misconduct)
- Brown v. Daikin America Inc., 756 F.3d 219 (2d Cir.) (comparative treatment/similarly‑situated analysis)
- Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (2d Cir.) (retaliation causation principles)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir.) (retaliation: substantial‑reason standard)
- Aulicino v. New York City Dep’t of Homeless Servs., 580 F.3d 73 (2d Cir.) (failure‑to‑promote prima facie requirements)
- Brown v. Coach Stores, Inc., 163 F.3d 706 (2d Cir.) (failure‑to‑promote/prima facie proof)
- Harrison v. Republic of Sudan, 838 F.3d 86 (2d Cir.) (appellate review of issues not raised below)