Bucalo v. Shelter Island Union Free School District
691 F.3d 119
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Bucalo applied for a 1999 librarian opening; the District hired a younger candidate, Hallman.
- Bucalo filed an EEOC charge in 1999; no lawsuit followed at that time.
- In 2003 Bucalo reapplied; Lanier, sole decision maker, chose four finalists and Bucalo was not interviewed; Chrabolowski was hired.
- Lanier died in 2005; his deposition was unsafely preserved due to illness, and he later executed an affidavit denying discriminatory motive.
- District and Bucalo cross-moved for summary judgment; the district court found genuine issues of material fact and allowed trial under McDonnell Douglas.
- Jury returned a verdict for the District on all claims; Bucalo moved for judgment as a matter of law or new trial, which the district court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether Bucalo proved prima facie discrimination and retaliation | Bucalo asserts Lanier’s death prevents rebuttal of prima facie case | District argues circumstantial evidence supports legitimate reasons despite absence of Lanier | Disputed elements remained to be decided by jury |
| whether district met McDonnell Douglas burden of production without the decision maker | Lanier’s death makes it impossible to articulate nondiscriminatory reasons | Resumes and other circumstantial evidence suffice to show legitimate reasons | District may rely on circumstantial evidence to satisfy burden |
| whether resumes and other records were admissible to prove motives | Lanier’s affidavits are inadmissible hearsay; no witness could testify to Lanier’s motives | Resumes are admissible as business records and show information Lanier used | Resumes properly admitted; allowed circumstantial inference of motives |
| whether the jury should be instructed under McDonnell Douglas framework | Jury should apply traditional McDonnell Douglas analysis | The jury need not be charged with the framework; focus on ultimate discrimination question | Jury appropriately decided the ultimate issues; no rigid instruction required |
| whether the overall judgment was proper given the unavailable decision maker | Without Lanier, Bucalo cannot be defeated by lack of nondiscriminatory reason | Unavailability does not entitle automatic judgment for Bucalo; evidence supports district case | District’s judgment affirmed; Bucalo’s position rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (Supreme Court 1993) (prima facie case and shifting burdens; ultimate persuation rule)
- Burdine, 450 U.S. reda (Supreme Court 1981) (framework for shifting burden to defendant)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court 2000) (pretext and ultimate burden on plaintiff)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (application of McDonnell Douglas to ADEA and retaliation)
- Jute v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 420 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2005) (causal connection element in retaliation)
- Woodman v. WWOR-TV, Inc., 411 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 2005) (ability to rely on circumstantial evidence when motive is unclear)
- Fisher v. Vassar College, 114 F.3d 1332 (2d Cir. 1997) (exceptional evidentiary circumstances when decision maker unavailable)