629 F. App'x 116
2d Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Sarah Báez, pro se, sued New York State and OTDA alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under the ADA, Title VII, and NYSHRL.
- District court dismissed her complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); Báez appealed.
- Claims included failure to promote and a long-running course of adverse actions from ~2000 to 2013; Báez alleged prior lawsuits in 1992 and 2009 as protected activity.
- Defendants invoked sovereign immunity for ADA and NYSHRL claims and contested timeliness and sufficiency of Title VII claims.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo and evaluated plausibility and inference of discrimination/retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State immune from ADA and NYSHRL claims | Báez pressed ADA and NYSHRL claims against NY State/OTDA | State asserted sovereign immunity and lack of consent to suit | Affirmed: sovereign immunity bars Title I ADA claims; NY not consent to federal NYSHRL suits |
| Timeliness and sufficiency of Title VII discrimination claim | Báez alleged pass-overs for promotion based on national origin | Defendants argued most allegations untimely and timely ones fail to plausibly show discriminatory intent | Affirmed: most claims untimely; timely allegations do not plausibly show national-origin discrimination (promotions largely to Puerto Rican candidates) |
| Causation for Title VII retaliation claim | Báez relied on temporal proximity to 1992 and 2009 lawsuits to show retaliation | Defendants argued gaps and that adverse conduct predated 2009 suit, defeating causal inference | Affirmed: timing too remote from 1992; adverse conduct began before 2009, so no plausible retaliation inference |
| Sufficiency for post-2009 actions dismissed by district court on policy-ground | Báez challenged dismissal of post-2009 actions as not tied to formal policy | Defendants maintained dismissal proper on pleaded grounds | Affirmed (on alternative ground): appellate court may affirm on any record-supported legal ground; dismissal stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. Time Warner, 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002) (12(b)(6) de novo review and liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (minimal factual showing for Title VII inference of discrimination)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (adverse action must be at least in part for discriminatory reason)
- Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (states retain sovereign immunity from Title I ADA suits)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (state consent required for suits under state law in federal court)
- Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (timing limitations for retaliation inference)
- Slattery v. Swiss Reins. Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (no retaliation inference where adverse actions began before protected activity)
- Olsen v. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, 136 F.3d 273 (appellate courts may affirm on any record-supported legal ground)