Guerra v. Jones
421 F. App'x 15
2d Cir.2011Background
- Guerra, a pro se plaintiff, sues Stephen Jones and others alleging Title VII, ADEA, and stigma-plus claims arising from his dismissal as a probationary teacher.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on Title VII, ADEA, and retaliation claims, and denied Guerra’s motion to amend to add Syracuse City School District.
- The court held defendants could not be personally liable under Title VII or ADEA and that retaliation claims were untimely due to failure to file within 90 days of the right-to-sue letter.
- Guerra argued he lacked sufficient discovery and sought to amend for additional defendants; the district court found amendment futile and discovery insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
- The Second Circuit reviews de novo and affirms if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- The panel concludes the stigma-plus claim fails, but would have post-deprivation name-clearing relief available through Article 78 in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal liability for Title VII/ADEA claims | Guerra contends individuals can be liable under Title VII/ADEA | Individual defendants are not subject to personal liability | Affirmed: individuals not liable under Title VII/ADEA |
| Timeliness of retaliation claims | Retaliation timely; equitable tolling may apply | Untimely under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and 29 U.S.C. § 626(e) | Affirmed: retaliation claims time-barred; no equitable tolling shown |
| Leave to amend to add Syracuse District | Amendment should be permitted to save potential claims | District court did not abuse discretion; amendment futile and delayed | Affirmed: denial of amendment not an abuse of discretion |
| Viability of stigma-plus claim and proper remedy | Stigma-plus due process violation supports § 1983 claim | Stigma-plus claim fails or remedy not appropriate here | Affirmed: stigma-plus claim fails; post-deprivation name-clearing hearing available |
Key Cases Cited
- Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (2d Cir. 1995) (personal liability when not allowed by statute)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (Sup. Ct. 1998) (supervisor liability and employment discrimination framework)
- Patterson v. City of Utica, 370 F.3d 322 (2d Cir. 2004) (name-clearing/defamation stigma-plus framework and remedy)
- Segal v. City of New York, 459 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2006) (liberty interest and post-employment process for stigma-plus)
- Donato v. Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. Sch. Dist., 96 F.3d 623 (2d Cir. 1996) (defamatory statements and publication requirements for stigma-plus)
- Anemone v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 629 F.3d 97 (2d Cir. 2011) (post-deprivation process for due process analysis)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (standard for summary judgment and if record could rationally support non-movant)
- Guerra v. Jones, 2010 WL 986403 (N.D.N.Y. 2010) (district court rationale cited by Second Circuit)
- In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2008) (discovery rulings and Rule 56(f) standards)
- Paddington Partners v. Bouchard, 34 F.3d 1132 (2d Cir. 1994) (Rule 56(f) affidavits and continuing discovery standard)
- Swinton v. Safir, 93 N.Y.2d 758 (N.Y. 1999) (Article 78 name-clearing context for stigmatizing material)
- Donato v. Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. Sch. Dist. (repeated), 96 F.3d 623 (2d Cir. 1996) (defamatory statements and publication requirements for stigma-plus)