Cox v. Onondaga County Sheriff's Department
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13962
2d Cir.2014Background
- Five Onondaga County Sheriff’s deputies filed an internal "blue form" and later EEOC complaints alleging racial harassment after shaving their heads in solidarity with a colleague undergoing chemotherapy; they implicated Deputy O’Dell Willis as the source of rumors that they were "skinheads."
- An initial internal investigator (Captain Woloszyn) reported no harassment, but the Department’s Professional Standards Unit (PSU) reopened the matter after finding inconsistencies and receiving a misconduct referral from Assistant Chief Wasilewski alleging false reports.
- The PSU interviews found no firsthand evidence that Willis accused deputies to their faces; appellants had given inconsistent statements to the EEOC indicating a face-to-face confrontation.
- During PSU interviews appellants were told disciplinary charges for filing false EEOC statements were possible; PSU reports concluded some officers (and Woloszyn) made false or misleading statements. Sheriff Walsh ultimately declined to pursue charges against the deputies; Woloszyn was demoted.
- Appellants sued alleging Title VII retaliation (among other claims); the district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the retaliation claims for lack of an adverse employment action. The Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department’s PSU investigation into appellants’ harassment claims was an adverse employment action | The PSU investigation (rather than informal handling), its scope, differential treatment of Willis, and denial of PSU report amounted to retaliation that would deter reasonable employees | The PSU had authority to investigate under policy; investigation was justified by Woloszyn’s flawed probe and inconsistencies; investigation alone is not adverse | Investigation alone, without more, is not an adverse action; summary judgment for defendant affirmed |
| Whether informing appellants they might be charged for filing false EEOC reports constituted adverse action/retaliation | Threats to bring false-report charges are inherently chilling and constitute retaliation | Threats were reasonable responses to materially inconsistent, possibly false EEOC statements and pursued under nonretaliatory policy; employer had duty to investigate false reports | Threats established a prima facie case, but Department articulated a legitimate nonretaliatory reason and plaintiffs produced no pretext evidence; summary judgment for defendant affirmed |
| Whether employer may discipline employees for knowingly false EEOC filings | Plaintiffs argued any discipline for EEOC filings chills protected activity and is per se retaliatory | Defendant asserted it may investigate and discipline false filings, particularly in law-enforcement context, consistent with non-discriminatory rules | Employer may investigate/seek discipline for false filings; such actions are lawful if motivated by legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons |
| Whether district judge should have recused | Plaintiffs argued prior relationship between Judge Mordue and Sheriff Walsh required recusal | Defendants noted lengthy passage of time and no contact since 2005, negating appearance of partiality | No abuse of discretion in denying recusal; no reasonable appearance of partiality |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd., 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir.) (summary judgment evidence viewed in plaintiff’s favor)
- Kessler v. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 461 F.3d 199 (2d Cir.) (elements of prima facie Title VII retaliation claim)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation requires employer action that would deter a reasonable worker)
- Malik v. Carrier Corp., 202 F.3d 97 (2d Cir.) (context of employer investigations into harassment claims)
- Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 663 F.3d 556 (2d Cir.) (fact‑finding investigations that do not impose job consequences are not adverse)
- Quinn v. Green Tree Credit Corp., 159 F.3d 759 (2d Cir.) (good-faith, reasonable belief standard for protected activity)
- Duch v. Jakubek, 588 F.3d 757 (2d Cir.) (employer’s duty to investigate and curb workplace harassment)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (U.S.) (Title VII’s remedial purpose to avoid harm)