El Sayed v. Hilton Hotels Corp.
627 F.3d 931
| 2d Cir. | 2010Background
- El Sayed, a U.S. citizen of Egyptian descent and Muslim, was hired in December 2004 as Assistant to the Director of Housekeeping at Hilton.
- He was terminated on August 9, 2006, about three weeks after he complained to Barbara Still that a coworker called him a 'Terrorist Muslim Taliban.'
- Hilton asserted the discharge was based on a misrepresentation—omission of certain prior employment history on his job application—discovered in August 2006.
- El Sayed admitted the omission during a August 2006 confrontation, after which he was terminated later that month.
- The district court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to Title VII retaliation claims and granted summary judgment for Hilton.
- The Second Circuit reviews summary judgments de novo and considers whether temporal proximity plus evidence of pretext exist to survive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether temporal proximity supports prima facie retaliation | El Sayed relies on temporal proximity to show retaliation. | Timing alone is insufficient without pretext evidence and a legitimate non-retaliatory reason. | Temporal proximity alone insufficient; no pretext evidence shown; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether Hilton's misrepresentation ground was pretext for retaliation | Discharge based on complaint suggests retaliatory motive. | Omission of employment history constitutes a legitimate ground for dismissal under policy. | District court did not err in treating omission as legitimate non-retaliatory reason. |
| Whether El Sayed produced evidence creating a triable issue of retaliation | Proximity plus retaliation intent; pretext exists. | No pretext evidence beyond proximity; plaintiff conceded omission. | No triable issue; summary judgment for Hilton affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
- Stratton v. Dep't for the Aging for the City of New York, 132 F.3d 869 (2d Cir.1997) (applies McDonnell Douglas to discrimination/retaliation)
- Quinn v. Green Tree Credit Corp., 159 F.3d 759 (2d Cir.1998) (temporal proximity alone not enough without pretext)
- Simpson v. N.Y. State Dep't of Civil Servs., 166 Fed.Appx. 499 (2d Cir.2006) (summary order reiterating proximity requires pretext evidence)
- Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 532 F.3d 101 (2d Cir.2008) (summary judgment standard; deference to nonmoving party where applicable)