Campbell v. New York City Transit Authority
662 F. App'x 57
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Collette Campbell worked for the NYC Transit Authority from 1983 until she retired in August 2011; she alleges her retirement was a constructive discharge.
- Her claims arise mainly from two 2009 incidents involving a subordinate, Jimmy Davenport, after which the Authority held Campbell out of service and suspended both employees.
- The Transit Authority investigated, opposed Campbell’s workers’ compensation claim from the second incident, and pursued disciplinary charges for alleged sick-leave abuse.
- Campbell sued pro se under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA for discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, retaliation, and constructive discharge.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Transit Authority and denied reconsideration; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination (sex, age, disability) | Transit Authority disciplined/suspended Campbell because of sex, age, and/or disability | Actions were based on Davenport’s written complaint and legitimate investigation | Affirmed: Campbell failed to raise a triable issue of discriminatory intent or rebut nondiscriminatory reasons |
| Failure to accommodate (ADA) | Alleged disability discrimination | No evidence Campbell requested an accommodation | Affirmed: no request or denial shown |
| Hostile work environment | Davenport’s comments and incidents created a hostile workplace | Incidents were isolated and not severe or pervasive | Affirmed: two isolated incidents insufficient to establish hostile work environment |
| Retaliation | Adverse actions were in retaliation for protected activity | Actions were justified by complaint, investigation, sick‑leave findings, and workers’ comp dispute | Affirmed: no causal connection and nondiscriminatory reasons unrebutted |
| Constructive discharge | Retirement was involuntary due to intolerable conditions | Authority denied that retirement was involuntary; record lacks intolerable conditions or intent to force resignation | Affirmed: no constructive discharge shown |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination)
- Petrosino v. Bell Atlantic, 385 F.3d 210 (defining hostile work environment and imputing employer liability)
- Woodman v. WWOR‑TV, Inc., 411 F.3d 69 (distinguishing inference of discrimination from speculation)
- Redd v. N.Y. Div. of Parole, 678 F.3d 166 (severity/pervasiveness standard; isolated incidents generally insufficient)
- Kirkland v. Cablevision Sys., 760 F.3d 223 (elements of Title VII prima facie case)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (ADEA prima facie framework)
- Kinneary v. City of New York, 601 F.3d 151 (ADA adverse‑action/causation requirements)
- Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (retaliation causation standard)
- El Sayed v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 627 F.3d 931 (employee must rebut employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons)
- Zann Kwan v. Andalex Group, 737 F.3d 834 (Title VII retaliation requires but‑for causation)