Dotson v. City of Syracuse, 688 F. App'x 69

Sonia Dotson, a Hispanic Community Service Officer in the Syracuse Police Department, worked there from 2000 until her termination in February 2015. She previously sued the City in 2004 (Dotson I) alleging discrimination and retaliation; a 2010 jury found retaliation and awarded damages in 2011.
This later suit challenged three post‑Dotson I events: a 2008 suspension for insubordination, a 2009 appellate action by the county DA regarding criminal charges, and a 2012 suspension for insubordination.
Dotson asserted Title VII discrimination and retaliation, Section 1981 and 1983 claims, Fourteenth Amendment claims, NYSHRL claims, and Monell municipal liability based on incidents tied to her earlier complaints about workplace pornography and a coworker’s EEOC filing.
The district court dismissed Dotson’s Monell claim (res judicata) and her 2012‑suspension retaliation claim (Rule 12(b)(6)), then granted summary judgment for defendants on the remaining claims.
On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded: it affirmed dismissal of most claims and the 2012 retaliation claim, but vacated and remanded the discrimination claim tied to the 2008 suspension for further analysis of pretext.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 2008 suspension showed gender discrimination under Title VII	Dotson: decision was pretextual; supervisors made derogatory remarks about women indicating discriminatory motive	Defendants: legitimate, non‑discriminatory reason for suspension; no proof of pretext	Vacated and remanded — district court must consider derogatory remarks and record as whole when assessing pretext
Whether 2012 suspension was Title VII discrimination	Dotson: discipline was due to gender	Defendants: legitimate reason for discipline; no sufficient evidence of pretext	Affirmed — no sufficient evidence of gender discrimination for 2012 suspension
Whether 2012 suspension was Title VII retaliation for Dotson I (or related protected activity)	Dotson: temporal proximity between 2011 jury verdict (or ongoing litigation) and Feb 2012 discipline shows retaliation	Defendants: too remote in time from protected activity (initial suit filed ~2004); no causal nexus	Affirmed — temporal gap too long; plaintiff failed to plead causal connection
Whether claims support Monell municipal liability	Dotson: patterns of discrimination/retaliation by municipal actors support municipal liability	Defendants: isolated acts and prior litigation preclude a municipal custom/policy showing; res judicata bar for some Monell theories	Affirmed — allegations insufficient to establish municipal policy/custom causing violations

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment)
Walsh v. New York City Housing Authority, 828 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2016) (consider evidence as a whole when evaluating pretext)
Danzer v. Norden Systems, Inc., 151 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1998) (discriminatory language probative of intent)
Jute v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 420 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2005) (elements of Title VII retaliation prima facie case)
Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy/custom causation)
Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (temporal proximity must be very close to infer retaliation)
Waldman v. Village of Kiryas Joel, 207 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000) (isolated acts insufficient for Monell liability)
Jones v. Town of East Haven, 691 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2012) (proof required to show municipal custom/policy)
Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 555 U.S. 271 (protected activity includes participation in internal investigations)