Fahrenkrug v. Verizon Services Corp.
652 F. App'x 54
2d Cir.2016Background
- Susan Fahrenkrug sued Verizon and individual supervisors alleging gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the NYSHRL after her termination and related workplace actions.
- District Court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice; plaintiff appeals and also challenges certain discovery rulings.
- Plaintiff alleged disparate treatment by male peers, denial of transfers, termination after refusing a Tampa relocation, and retaliatory monitoring/ignoring of complaints.
- Court of Appeals limited review to gender discrimination, retaliation, and discovery rulings; plaintiff waived other arguments by not raising them on appeal.
- The panel held plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination because she produced no evidence about male peers’ duties, assignments, pay, or transfers to show she was similarly situated.
- The panel also affirmed dismissal of retaliation claims (no adverse employment action from alleged monitoring or failure to investigate) and upheld the district court’s discovery and privilege rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender discrimination (prima facie) | Fahrenkrug: she was treated less favorably than male coworkers leading to adverse actions including termination | Verizon: no evidence comparing plaintiff to similarly situated male employees; legitimate business reasons for transfer/termination efforts | Held: No prima facie case—plaintiff failed to show similarly situated comparators or infer discrimination |
| Termination for refusing relocation | Fahrenkrug: termination was pretext for discrimination after refusing Tampa move | Verizon: attempted to find local positions for plaintiff as for others; legitimate non-discriminatory reason | Held: Evidence supports Verizon’s explanation; plaintiff did not create factual dispute |
| Retaliation (monitoring/ignoring complaints) | Fahrenkrug: defendants ignored complaints and monitored/recorded her work computer in retaliation | Verizon: alleged actions do not constitute adverse employment actions or retaliation | Held: Dismissed—those allegations do not amount to adverse employment action or prohibited retaliation |
| Discovery and privilege rulings | Fahrenkrug: sought broader company-wide discovery and challenged privilege/in camera rulings | Verizon: provided supplemented privilege log and invoked work-product and privilege protections; district court reviewed in camera | Held: District Court did not abuse discretion; privilege and in camera review appropriate; company-wide requests overly broad |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Montana v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Rochester, 869 F.2d 100 (elements of prima facie case)
- Sanders v. NYC Human Res. Admin., 361 F.3d 749 (definition of adverse employment action)
- Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34 (similarly situated standard for disparate treatment)
- Harlen Assocs. v. Inc. Vill. of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494 (summary judgment on similarly situated issue when no reasonable jury could find comparability)
- Fincher v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 604 F.3d 712 (failure to investigate not necessarily retaliation)
- Cruden v. Bank of New York, 957 F.2d 961 (standard for reviewing discovery rulings)