Carr v. New York City Transit Authority, 76 F.4th 172

Jennifer Berkeley Carr, an African‑American woman born in 1955, was a director in NYCTA’s Capital Programs Department and applied in 2013–2014 for two senior‑director promotions she did not receive.
The promotions went to Joseph DiLorenzo (white man) and David Chan (Asian man), both older, longer‑tenured, and with technical backgrounds; Carr does not contend the selectees were unqualified.
After internal EEO complaints (2014) and an EEOC charge (2015), Carr sued (2016) alleging age, race, and sex discrimination (Title VII, ADEA, §1981) and retaliation (including a retaliatory hostile‑work‑environment claim).
The district court granted summary judgment for NYCTA, finding Carr had a prima facie discrimination case but failed to show pretext for the non‑promotions, and that her retaliation/hostile‑work‑environment claims failed for lack of materially adverse conduct and for lack of pretext.
On appeal the Second Circuit affirmed: it agreed there was no evidence of pretext for the non‑promotions, clarified the proper standard for retaliatory hostile‑work‑environment claims (Burlington Northern’s “materially adverse” test), but held Carr’s aggregate allegations were not materially adverse and failed to show pretext for the negative performance reviews.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Non‑selection/promotion discrimination (age, race, gender)	NYCTA passed over Carr for younger non‑Black men despite her qualifications	Selectees had greater tenure, technical backgrounds, and performed better in interviews	Court: prima facie shown but employer gave legitimate reasons; Carr failed to show pretext; summary judgment for NYCTA
Appropriate standard for retaliatory hostile‑work‑environment claims	District court used severe‑and‑pervasive test; Carr argued Burlington Northern’s materially adverse standard applies	NYCTA argued retaliatory hostile‑work‑environment should use same severe/pervasive test as discrimination claims	Court: Burlington Northern governs; retaliatory hostile‑work‑environment requires actions that are “materially adverse,” i.e., would dissuade a reasonable worker; but Carr’s facts still fail that test
Retaliation (post‑complaint adverse acts: poor reviews, extra tasks, removed staff, hostile emails)	Temporal proximity and aggregated conduct show retaliation and a hostile environment	Actions reflected generally‑applied policies, legitimate performance concerns, and no but‑for causation	Court: 2016–2017 “Needs Improvement” reviews are materially adverse but Carr offered no evidence of pretext or but‑for causation beyond timing; temporal proximity alone insufficient; summary judgment affirmed

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation requires a ‘‘materially adverse’’ action that would dissuade a reasonable worker)
Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting; plaintiff’s ultimate burden to prove intentional discrimination)
Davis‑Garett v. Urb. Outfitters, Inc., 921 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2019) (McDonnell Douglas framework applies to retaliation claims)
Bucalo v. Shelter Island Union Free Sch. Dist., 691 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2012) (discrimination claims analyzed under McDonnell Douglas)
Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (retaliation standard and related precedents in this Circuit)
Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Ops., Inc., 663 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2011) (same‑policy treatment may defeat retaliation inference)
Stern v. Trs. of Columbia Univ., 131 F.3d 305 (2d Cir. 1997) (departure from hiring criteria can support an inference of pretext)
Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (employer’s clear, specific, honest evaluation of qualifications defeats inference of discrimination)
Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013) (temporal proximity alone insufficient to establish pretext at summary judgment)
Laurent‑Workman v. Wormuth, 54 F.4th 201 (4th Cir. 2022) (applying Burlington Northern’s materially adverse standard to retaliatory hostile‑work‑environment claims)