Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.
921 F.3d 30
2d Cir.2019Background
- Garett, age 54, worked at Anthropologie from Sept 2012–Oct 2013 across three stores (Roosevelt Field, White Plains, Greenwich); she alleges repeated age-based ostracism, denials of training, assignment to fitting room and undesirable tasks, and age-related comments by managers.
- After complaining via the company hotline about age-based comments by a manager, Garett was promoted to apparel supervisor but alleges she received no training, increased criticism, exclusion from meetings, and an onerous opening/closing schedule.
- Garett applied for a transfer to an Edgewater, NJ supervisor position; she says she was offered the job but, after her hotline complaint became known, the offer was rescinded and she was reassigned to Greenwich to a position already filled and with only the least desirable duties.
- At Greenwich Garett called police on a suspicious customer; she was later given a written warning (which she says was presented as a termination) and did not return to work. Defendants dispute material facts, deny age-based remarks, and offer business explanations for transfers.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, excluding pre–Feb 16, 2013 events as time-barred, finding no hostile work environment and no adverse employment action for retaliation. Garett appealed.
- The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court erred in (1) excluding pre-limitations-period acts from hostile-environment and background-retaliation analysis and (2) applying the wrong legal standard to the retaliation claim; the court found triable issues on hostile work environment and retaliation and remanded for trial and reconsideration of state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Temporal scope: may pre-300–day acts be considered? | Garett: Pre–Feb 16, 2013 acts are part of a continuing hostile work environment and may be considered (and used as background). | Anthropologie: Events before the limitations period are time-barred and should be excluded. | Court: Pre-period acts may be considered for a hostile work environment claim (continuing violation) and as background for retaliation; district court erred excluding them. |
| Hostile work environment sufficiency under the ADEA | Garett: Cumulative daily comments, exclusion, denial of training, and onerous duties create severe/pervasive age-based environment. | Anthropologie: Isolated, occasional criticisms and business justifications; not objectively severe or pervasive. | Court: Crediting Garett's testimony and viewing record as a whole raises triable issues; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Retaliation standard: what constitutes adverse action? | Garett: Rescinded transfer/assignment to less desirable location and duties after complaint would deter a reasonable worker. | Anthropologie: No materially adverse employment action; district court applied pre-White substantive standard (materially adverse change in terms/conditions). | Court: District court applied wrong standard; White requires an objective "materially adverse" test (would deter a reasonable worker); under that standard facts create triable issues as to retaliation. |
| Summary judgment review / credibility at MSJ stage | Garett: Court must view evidence in her favor, consider all record evidence, and not weigh credibility. | Anthropologie: Disputed facts negate causation and justify judgment as matter of law. | Court: MSJ improperly weighed evidence/piecemeal reviewed record; must draw all reasonable inferences for nonmoving party; remanded for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (establishes objective and subjective elements for hostile work environment)
- National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (distinguishes discrete acts from continuing hostile-environment claims and permits consideration of out-of-time acts as part of a continuing violation)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation standard: action is materially adverse if it would deter a reasonable worker)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (summary judgment: court must review all evidence and cannot weigh credibility)
- Kessler v. Westchester County Dep’t of Social Servs., 461 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2006) (discusses retaliation prima facie elements pre-White)
- Kaytor v. Electric Boat Corp., 609 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (causation in retaliation: temporal proximity can support inference)
- Brennan v. Metropolitan Opera Ass’n, 192 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 1999) (hostile work environment: isolated incidents insufficient but cumulative conduct may be actionable)
- Weiss v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., [citation="332 F. App'x 659"] (2d Cir. 2009) (recognizes that innocuous terms may serve as euphemisms for age discrimination)