Avillan v. Donahoe, 483 F. App'x 637

Avillan sued the Postal Service under Title VII alleging discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims.
The court found no materially adverse action supporting discrimination or retaliation claims.
The court concluded the alleged hostile environment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive.
Avillan raised additional allegations in response to summary judgment, which the district court declined to consider.
Avillan’s pro se brief raised a new claim about a three-month suspension, which the panel did not review on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Avillan showed a materially adverse action under Title VII.	Avillan contends actions like being replaced as acting group leader and route changes were adverse.	Donahoe argues these actions are not materially adverse.	No material adversity; claims fail on summary judgment.
Whether the hostile work environment claim is sufficiently severe or pervasive.	Avillan asserts conduct created a hostile environment.	Alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive.	Hostile environment claim insufficient.
Whether the district court properly disregarded new allegations raised in response to summary judgment.	Avillan asserts timely amendments via opposition.	New allegations cannot amend the complaint.	District court did not err in disregarding new allegations.
Whether the three-month suspension argument was reviewable on appeal.	Avillan claims suspension without pay.	Issue not preserved below; not reviewed.	Not reviewed on appeal.

Ruiz v. County of Rockland, 609 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2010) (elements of prima facie Title VII discrimination claim)
Mack v. Otis Elevator Co., 326 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2003) (prima facie retaliation requirements for Title VII)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (materially adverse action must dissuade a reasonable worker)
Patrolmen’s Benevolent Ass’n v. City of New York, 310 F.3d 43 (2d Cir. 2002) (adverse change must be more than a mere inconvenience)
Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (Title VII provisions are not coterminous)
Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2002) (hostile environment requires severe or pervasive conduct)
Wright v. Ernst & Young LLP, 152 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998) (preclusive rule against amending complaint via response to motion)
Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (1976) (issues not passed upon below generally not reviewed)
Virgilio v. City of New York, 407 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2005) (preservation of claims on appeal)