Carvalho v. Associated Brands Inc.
707 F. App'x 742
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Carvalho, a pro se employee, worked as a packer for Associated Brands Inc.; he alleged discrimination under the ADA after being denied a promotion to a machine-operator position and alleged retaliation related to an FMLA absence.
- District court adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation granting summary judgment for Associated; Carvalho appealed.
- Associated accepted applications for a bouillon machine operator position but later decided as a business judgment not to fill that position.
- Carvalho argues the decision not to promote him was based on his anxiety disorder and that Associated initially marked an August 16, 2013 FMLA absence as unexcused after he complained to HR/coworkers.
- HR later investigated Carvalho’s complaints, changed the unexcused absence to excused, and took the correction as a good-faith action.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed summary judgment for Associated on both the denial-of-promotion ADA claim and the retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA denial of promotion — whether denial was discriminatory or pretextual | Carvalho contends Associated denied him promotion due to his anxiety disorder and that employer reasons were pretext | Associated says it legitimately decided as a business judgment not to fill the bouillon machine operator position | Court: No pretext; Carvalho offered only speculation and no evidence that the non‑selection/failure to fill was due to disability — summary judgment for Associated affirmed |
| ADA retaliation — whether temporary marking of an FMLA day as unexcused constituted adverse action and was causally connected to protected activity | Carvalho contends treating Aug 16 absence as unexcused after he complained was retaliation; also cites later ethics hotline complaint | Associated notes HR promptly investigated, corrected the record to excused, and that the hotline complaint occurred after the August event (lack of causation) | Court: No materially adverse action and no causation (protected activity post‑dated the alleged adverse act) — summary judgment for Associated affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Summa v. Hofstra Univ., 708 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2013) (standard of review and summary judgment framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Davis v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 804 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2015) (application of McDonnell Douglas in ADA context)
- Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000) (plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence of pretext)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. P’ship, 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir. 1994) (courts should not second‑guess good‑faith business judgments but plaintiff may show pretext)
- Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2002) (elements and definition of materially adverse action for retaliation claims)