Howard v. MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad, 866 F. Supp. 2d 196

Howard, an African-American, was hired by MTA Metro-North as a locomotive engineer trainee in February 2008 under the LETP, a roughly 11-month probationary program with three training phases.
Howard alleges racial discrimination and color discrimination in his termination from the LETP after being warned for missing a train and for leaving his post to obtain study guides, actions which allegedly reflected poorly on his judgment.
The termination was decided by supervisor Mesa, with Meinck involved in training and supervision; Kenneth Page, another African-American trainee, was not terminated.
Howard filed an EEOC charge after an outside Perry Investigation found insufficient facts to support discrimination; the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter, and Howard filed this Title VII and §1981 action.
MTA moved for summary judgment; the court held that the termination was facially neutral in rationale and that Howard failed to show pretext; the court granted summary judgment for MTA.
Howard sought relief under Rule 60(b) from a prior judgment; the court denied relief after evaluating arguments on mistake, fraud, and newly discovered evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of the Title VII claim	Howard's filing was timely under the 90-day rule.	The filing was late; March 15, 2010 deadline passed.	timely due to pro se filing date as the receipt date by the Pro Se Office
Whether MTA’s termination was pretextual discrimination	Evidence shows race-based inconsistency and biased treatment by Meinck and Santiago.	Termination rested on a facially neutral rule violation and poor judgment; no pretext shown.	No pretext; no evidence of discriminatory intent; no §1981 Monell policy present
Prima facie showing and McDonnell Douglas framework	Howard made a prima facie showing and pretext evidence should rebut legitimate reasons.	Defendant offered legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; plaintiff failed to show pretext.	Proved none; grant of summary judgment affirmed
§1981 claim viability against a government entity	Discrimination alleged under §1981 against a municipal policy.	No evidence of a municipal policy or custom of racial discrimination.	§1981 claim fails; no Monell policy shown

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes framework for disparate treatment proof)
St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext framework requires plaintiff to prove discriminatory intent)
Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (reaffirmed pretext framework and burden shifting)
Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (establishes burden-shifting structure for discrimination claims)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext evidence may suffice to infer discrimination)
Grady v. Affiliated Cent., Inc., 130 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 1997) (ties multiple factors in discrimination analysis when hiring/firing by same actor)
Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2000) (emphasizes burden on plaintiff to prove discrimination)
Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (U.S. 1989) (Monell-like implications in §1981 claims against municipalities)
City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (U.S. 1985) (limits liability by requiring policy-level proof)