Cadet-Legros v. New York University Hospital Center
135 A.D.3d 196
N.Y. App. Div.2015Background
- Jessie Cadet-Legros, an African‑American clinical supervisor at NYU Langone's serology/diagnostic immunology lab, was employed since 1992 and disciplined repeatedly from 2007–2009 for insubordination and disruptive behavior.
- Defendant issued multiple written warnings, poor performance evaluations (rating 2/5), and progressive discipline culminating in a termination letter given May 14, 2009.
- Plaintiff filed an internal racial-discrimination complaint in August 2008 while the warnings and discipline were ongoing.
- Plaintiff sued under the New York City Human Rights Law alleging discriminatory discharge and retaliation; the motion court denied summary judgment on disparate treatment but granted it as to retaliation.
- On appeal, the First Department reviewed whether defendant met its burden to show non‑discriminatory reasons and whether plaintiff raised triable issues of pretext or causation for retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discriminatory discharge — was termination motivated by race (in whole or part)? | Cadet‑Legros: supervisors used racially coded language and supportive affidavits undermine defendant's stated reasons, showing pretext. | NYU: termination was for documented, nondiscriminatory reasons — longstanding insubordination, disruptive conduct, and progressive discipline. | Court granted summary judgment for defendant; plaintiff failed to produce evidence that defendant's reasons were false, misleading, or racially motivated. |
| Whether phrases like "a leopard does not change its spots" and "tirade" are racially coded language | Plaintiff: phrase has racist origins and here reflects racial animus. | NYU: phrases are commonplace, context shows they refer to repeated behavior, not race. | Court held plaintiff offered no evidence to show contemporary racial meaning or that speakers used them racially; not pretextual. |
| Admissibility / probative value of coworker affidavit on pretext | Plaintiff: affidavit disputed occurrence/interpretation of incidents and praised technical skill, showing pretext. | NYU: affiant lacked knowledge of the complained‑of events and did not contradict defendant's documented reasons; praised technical skill irrelevant to misconduct-based firing. | Court held affidavit was not probative of pretext because it did not refute the documented grounds for discipline. |
| Retaliation — was there a causal connection between the August 2008 complaint and May 2009 termination? | Cadet‑Legros: temporal proximity and post‑complaint termination imply retaliation. | NYU: termination was the culmination of preexisting progressive discipline; complaint did not materially change employer's conduct. | Court affirmed summary judgment for defendant on retaliation; plaintiff failed to show causal connection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 92 A.D.3d 29 (1st Dept. 2011) (framework for assessing pretext under City HRL and when to focus on defendant's nondiscriminatory reasons)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (recognizing indirect evidence and context for discriminatory intent)
- Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454 (2006) (speaker's meaning depends on context, inflection, historical usage)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (pleading and evidentiary analogies for discrimination claims)
- Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656 (1987) (intent to discriminate requires acting because of protected trait, not necessarily animus)
- Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2009) (City HRL construed broadly as a floor for protections)
- Melman v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 98 A.D.3d 107 (1st Dept. 2012) (stray remarks can show speaker motive and create triable issues)
- Koester v. New York Blood Ctr., 55 A.D.3d 447 (1st Dept. 2008) (termination after extended progressive discipline weakens retaliation inference)