110 F. Supp. 3d 458
W.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Stefanie A. Davis, an African American former alcohol and substance abuse counselor at Attica, sued NYS Department of Corrections alleging race/gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the NYSHRL; only the retaliation claim survived an earlier summary judgment ruling.
- Davis claimed her supervisor assigned her a disproportionate number of minority or behaviorally-difficult inmates and that complaints about assignments led to retaliatory acts.
- Defendant moved for a second summary-judgment after prior partial summary disposition; Davis did not file an opposition and had recurring mail/address problems with the court.
- Alleged retaliatory acts: an office search after a phone accusation, increased supervision/scrutiny, and a voluntary lateral transfer to Orleans Correctional Facility.
- The record showed inmate assignments were based on release dates and waiting lists that did not identify race; searches at Attica were routine; the transfer was voluntary and lateral with no loss of pay, title, or duties.
- The court granted summary judgment for Defendant, finding no protected activity or materially adverse employment actions sufficient to support Davis’s retaliation claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis engaged in protected activity under Title VII | Davis argued her complaints about being assigned disproportionate numbers of African American/Hispanic inmates constituted opposition to discriminatory practices | Assignments were random, race-neutral (based on release date); no reasonable belief of unlawful discrimination | Held: Davis did not engage in protected activity; belief was not objectively reasonable |
| Whether Defendant knew of protected activity | Davis contends she complained to supervisors | Defendant contends any complaints were not complaints about unlawful, race-based practices | Held: Even assuming awareness, threshold protected activity fails so claim collapses |
| Whether alleged acts were materially adverse | Davis asserted office search, increased supervision, and transfer were retaliatory and adverse | Defendant showed searches are routine, supervision did not include discipline, and transfer was voluntary and lateral with no loss | Held: Actions were trivial/minor or non-adverse when viewed individually or in aggregate |
| Whether there is causation/pretext | Davis implies temporal and factual connection between complaints and actions | Defendant offered legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons (routine security, supervisory oversight, voluntary transfer) | Held: Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of pretext or causal nexus |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation)
- Kelly v. Howard I. Shapiro & Assocs. Consulting Eng’rs, P.C., 716 F.3d 10 (objective-reasonableness requirement for protected activity)
- Manoharan v. Columbia Univ. Coll. of Physicians & Surgeons, 842 F.2d 590 (limits on what constitutes protected complaints)
- Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg’l Transp. Auth., 743 F.3d 11 (materially adverse standard for retaliation)
- Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 663 F.3d 556 (criticism/supervision not necessarily materially adverse)