Forest v. New York State Office of Mental Health
672 F. App'x 42
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Ruth Forest, an RN at Sullivan Correctional Facility since 2006, filed an internal gender-discrimination complaint in March 2011 and a NYSDHR complaint in April 2012; she then sued under Title VII and §1983.
- After an eight-month medical leave (May 2011–Jan 2012), Forest alleges supervisors retaliated by changing her schedule, restricting leaving for lunch, requiring review of new policies, disciplining her for charting with red ink, and criticizing her over a missing syringe and other paperwork.
- She also alleges assignment to an extra week of medication classes and being prevented from answering phones during morning meetings.
- The district court dismissed Forest’s discrimination claims and granted summary judgment to OMH on the remaining Title VII retaliation claim. Forest appealed the summary judgment ruling.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo, applying the prima facie retaliation framework (protected activity, employer knowledge, materially adverse action, causal connection) and requiring evidence of pretext if the employer proffers legitimate reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Forest engaged in protected activity known to employer | Forest filed internal and NYSDHR complaints (protected activity) | OMH does not dispute knowledge of complaints | Court treated protected activity as established but focused on adversity and causation |
| Whether the alleged acts were materially adverse | Forest argued schedule changes, restrictions, reprimands, extra duties, and training assignments were adverse enough to deter a reasonable employee | OMH argued actions were trivial, routine enforcement of policies, or within job duties and thus not materially adverse | Court held actions were not materially adverse (trivial slights or reasonable policy enforcement) |
| Whether there was a causal connection between complaints and adverse acts | Forest relied on timing and sequence of events to show causation | OMH pointed to legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons and contemporaneous policy reinforcements; for many acts Forest offered no response | Court found insufficient causal showing for most acts and affirmed summary judgment |
| Whether OMH’s proffered reasons were pretextual | Forest argued discipline and policy enforcement were pretext for retaliation | OMH produced written policies and evidence that enforcement was general and legitimate | Court held Forest failed to raise triable issue of pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 663 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2011) (defines "materially adverse" and excludes trivial workplace slights)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (objective standard for materially adverse actions in retaliation cases)
- Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth., 743 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2014) (enforcement of preexisting rules in a reasonable manner is not materially adverse)
- Cox v. Onondaga Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, 760 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2014) (prima facie retaliation elements)
- Jute v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 420 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2005) (employer burden to articulate legitimate non-retaliatory reason)
- Kessler v. Westchester Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 461 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2006) (plaintiff must show proffered reason is pretext to survive summary judgment)