453 F. App'x 30
2d Cir.2011Background
- Desir, a former home instruction teacher with the NYC Department of Education, was a probationary employee at the time of termination.
- He alleged Title VII discrimination and retaliation, NY state and NYC statutory claims, and constitutional rights claims under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City defendants on federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- Desir was the only African-American among five home-instruction teachers rated unsatisfactory in 2004-2005, but four Caucasian teachers with unsatisfactory ratings were tenured.
- The district court found Desir’s claims lacked a prima facie showing and that non-discriminatory reasons for termination were not pretextual.
- Desir was terminated in June 2005; complaints to EEOC/OEO were filed in April 2005 and are discussed in the retaliation analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination under Title VII established? | Desir claims disparate treatment based on race. | Desir failed to show similarly situated comparators and pretext. | Affirmed summary judgment; no prima facie discrimination shown and no pretext proven. |
| Retaliation under Title VII proven? | Desir’s complaints caused the adverse action. | Preexisting performance issues predated complaints, lacking causality. | Affirmed; no causal link shown. |
| First Amendment protection of employee speech? | Desir spoke on matters of public concern. | Speech was personal and relates to duties/privileges; no public concern. | Affirmed; no protected speech claim. |
| Procedural due process before termination? | Desir had property interest requiring hearing before termination. | Desir was a probationary employee with no property interest; post-deprivation remedies applicable. | Affirmed; no due process violation. |
| Equal protection/municipal liability under §1983? | Actions occurred under Department of Education policy or custom. | No evidence of policy or custom; actions individual to supervisors. | Affirmed; no municipal liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
- Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000) (summary judgment possible in discrimination actions with genuine issues)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (pretext burden after legitimate reason shown)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (public employee speech doctrine; not protected if personal in nature)
- Jute v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 420 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2005) (retaliation prima facie burden is de minimis)
- Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2004) (application of McDonnell Douglas to Title VII)
- Segal v. City of New York, 459 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2006) (due process and property interests of public employees)