546 F. App'x 58
2d Cir.2013Background
- Chick sued Suffolk County and DPW officials under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for discriminatory discharge and hostile work environment based on Jewish faith and disability.
- Amended complaint referenced 2002 incidents where Morrero allegedly told Chick to shut up and used the phrase 'Ju-Ju Bee' and Patrizo allegedly responded 'Ju wants to go on vacation' in relation to workplace conduct.
- Chick alleged religious discrimination and harassment culminating in termination; claimed disability-based discrimination as well.
- Chick had prior suspensions for absenteeism, failing to perform duties, and time-record falsifications in June 2009, which defendants asserted as a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for dismissal.
- District court granted defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal; court applied de novo review and relied on Iqbal and Twombly standards; district court dismissed all claims.
- Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding no pretext shown for discrimination, no actionable hostile environment, disability claim not cognizable, and no municipal policy or custom established for Monell liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie discrimination and hostile environment under §1983. | Chick alleges religious discrimination and hostile environment based on Jewish faith. | Defendants contend evidence fails to show severe, pervasive harassment or discriminatory discharge. | Claims insufficiently pled; dismissed. |
| Disability discrimination under equal protection. | Chick asserts disability as a basis for discrimination and accommodations. | Disability not a suspect class; no class of one in public employment; no accommodation claim. | Not cognizable; dismissal affirmed. |
| Municipal liability under Monell. | Chick seeks municipal liability for discriminatory policies or customs. | No allegations of policy or custom linking termination to discrimination. | No Monell liability; dismissal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (establishes pleading standard for plausibility; rejects conclusory allegations)
- Faber v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 648 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2011) (distinguishes conclusory allegations from factual assertions)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (outline of burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Sorlucco v. N.Y.C. Police Dep’t, 888 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1989) (applicability of McDonnell Douglas in §1983 cases against municipalities or state actors)
- Chambers v. TRM Copy Ctrs. Corp., 43 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1994) (prima facie elements for discriminatory discharge under Title VII/§1983)
- Schwapp v. Town of Avon, 118 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 1997) (standard for hostile work environment requires pervasive, not isolated, conduct; imputability to employer)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agric., 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (discusses lack of 'class of one' in public employment contexts)
- Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2001) (limitations of Equal Protection for disability discrimination and accommodations)
- Nagle v. Marron, 663 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2011) (Monell analysis; policy or custom required for municipal liability)