473 F. App'x 21
2d Cir.2012Background
- Cardo, proceeding pro se, sued Arlington Central School District and others alleging age and disability discrimination and state-law defamation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims.
- ADEA claim requires but-for causation; district cited legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for non-selection as head coach and for termination.
- Cardo argued the reasons were pretextual and that age was the but-for cause, but the district presented evidence of interpersonal issues and poor performance.
- ADA claim centered on a perceived disability; Baker’s letter did not establish a substantial limitation of a major life activity.
- Defamation claim proceeded under New York law requiring timely notice of claim; Baker’s letter was authored within the scope of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADEA but-for causation | Cardo argues age was the but-for cause of actions. | District asserts legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for decisions. | But-for causation not shown; district reasons upheld. |
| Pretext for failure to appoint head coach | Reasons for non-selection were pretextual due to age. | Reasons were based on incidents and cooperation with others. | No sufficient pretext shown; reasons credible. |
| ADA perceived disability. | Cardo was perceived as disabled and harmed as a result. | Letter did not show a substantial limitation in a major life activity. | No substantial limitation; ADA claim fails. |
| Age-based termination | Termination evidence of age bias. | Termination grounded in professionalism and performance concerns. | Age not shown to be the decisive factor; claim fails. |
| Defamation notice requirement | Notice not required because Baker acted outside scope. | Baker acted within scope as head coach; notice proper under NY law. | Notice requirement satisfied; defamation claim barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court (2009)) (but-for causation required under ADEA)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Supreme Court (1973)) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (guides pretext analysis under McDonnell Douglas)
- Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2005) (summary judgment standard; scintilla of evidence not enough)
- Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (Supreme Court (1999)) (disparate-impact-like concept of broad job limitations)