Franklin v. Liberty Lines Transit, Inc.
685 F. App'x 41
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Steven Franklin, an African-American bus driver employed by Liberty Lines since 2007, was fired in 2012 for allegedly stealing overtime and falsifying time records.
- On November 27, 2011, Franklin's day card claimed arrival at the garage at 9:50 p.m.; video showed arrival at 9:00 p.m. and exiting the bus at 9:08 p.m. He requested 1 hour 10 minutes of overtime for alleged delays.
- Liberty’s Labor Relations Manager reviewed video and multiple day cards and found repeated similar overtime claims; Liberty’s policy treated overtime theft as terminable conduct.
- Franklin received two internal hearings and an arbitration (with personal counsel); the arbitrator upheld termination, finding theft of overtime proved.
- Franklin sued under Title VII, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 alleging racial discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment for Liberty, and Franklin appealed.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding Franklin failed to show Liberty’s stated reason was pretextual or that race was the real reason for termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Franklin made a prima facie Title VII discrimination case | Franklin argued termination was racially motivated and comparators show disparate treatment | Liberty argued termination was for non-discriminatory misconduct (overtime theft) supported by video and arbitration | Court assumed prima facie but did not decide it was dispositive; moved to pretext and found no genuine issue |
| Whether Liberty’s stated reason (overtime theft) was pretext | Franklin contended comparators and investigation patterns show pretext and discriminatory motive | Liberty relied on investigative evidence, video, and arbitrator’s finding of theft; contemporaneous policy and uniform enforcement | Held not pretext: arbitration and evidence established theft; comparators not sufficiently similar; no admissible evidence of discrimination |
| Admissibility/ effect of arbitration finding | Franklin argued earlier proceedings leave room to challenge employer motive here | Liberty argued collateral estoppel prevents relitigation of theft finding | Held collateral estoppel applies to the fact of overtime theft; Franklin cannot relitigate it |
| Whether other claims (§ 1983, §§ 1985/86) survive | Franklin asserted civil-rights conspiracy and state-action theories | Liberty and district court argued lack of state action and lack of conspiracy evidence | Franklin did not contest dismissal on appeal; those dismissals stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Sousa v. Marquez, 702 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment affirmed)
- Durakovic v. Bldg. Serv. 32 BJ Pension Fund, 609 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2010) (no genuine issue where record cannot lead a rational finder to the nonmovant)
- Boguslavsky v. Kaplan, 159 F.3d 715 (2d Cir. 1998) (collateral estoppel bars relitigation of prior arbitration findings)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Brown v. City of Syracuse, 673 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2012) (application of McDonnell Douglas framework)
- Ruiz v. County of Rockland, 609 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2010) (prima facie burden and burden-shifting explained)
- Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000) (standard for proving pretext requires sufficient evidence that employer's reasons are false)