Dabney v. Christmas Tree Shops, 958 F. Supp. 2d 439

Background

Plaintiff, an African-American woman, applied for Christmas Tree Shops’ Office Coordinator role around 2008–2009; Baldes recommended her for hire and Bartlett hired her on April 24, 2009.
Company uses an attendance “occurrence” system; three occurrences in a rolling three-month period triggers a written warning, with additional three occurrences within a year leading toward termination.
Plaintiff received her first written warning on September 23, 2009, and a Corrective Action Notice for Unsatisfactory Job Performance on October 9, 2009 after a performance review.
Plaintiff began keeping a work journal on October 11, 2009 documenting alleged unfair practices; December 2009 meeting addressed concerns, with Plaintiff informed of complaint avenues.
Plaintiff was terminated January 21, 2010 after accumulating nine occurrences within a year; she was replaced by a white female; Plaintiff asserted Title VII, ADEA, NYSHRL, ADA, Section 504, hostile environment, and retaliation claims, which the court resolves in Defendants’ favor on summary judgment.
Procedural posture: pro se Plaintiff opposing summary judgment; court analyzes on motion with defendant’s Rule 56.1 facts treated as admitted only to the extent supported by admissible evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiff proves a prima facie case of race discrimination.	Plaintiff asserts racial discrimination evidenced by replacement by a white employee and alleged discriminatory remarks.	Defendants contend no prima facie case for race discrimination; evidence shows legitimate attendance-based termination.	Race discrimination claim not supported at pretext stage; summary judgment for Defendants on race discrimination.
Whether the termination was pretextual, supporting discrimination claim.	Plaintiff argues the attendance policy was applied unequally and that termination was pretextual.	Defendants show adherence to attendance policy and lack of evidence of discriminatory motive.	No triable pretext; motion granted for discrimination claims.
Whether Plaintiff established a prima facie case of retaliation.	Plaintiff asserts journal/documentation of discrimination as protected activity; seeks causal link to termination.	No protected activity proven; Journal not shown to be protected activity; timing insufficient for causation.	Retaliation claims fail; summary judgment for Defendants.
Whether Plaintiff can state disability discrimination (ADA/Section 504).	Plaintiff claims disability-based disqualification of applicant was discriminatory.	Plaintiff fails to show protected disability status or adverse action based on disability.	Dismissed ADA and Section 504 claims.
Whether Plaintiff states a hostile work environment claim.	Plaintiff alleges hostile environment from co-worker statements and supervisor conduct.	Incidents amount to isolated, non-severe, or non-pervasive conduct; not attributable to employer; no supervisor liability.	Hostile environment claim dismissed.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burden on movant to show no genuine issue)
Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (applies McDonnell Douglas framework to ADEA claims)
Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (ADEA burden of proving but-for causation)
Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013) (supervisor vs. coworker liability for harassment)
Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55 (2d Cir. 1997) (admissibility and use of evidence in summary judgment)
Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2001) (prima facie and pretext framework; timing considerations)
Sumner v. U.S. Postal Serv., 899 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1990) (protected activity includes certain protest behaviors, not mere speculation)