849 F. Supp. 2d 296
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Plaintiff James, an African-American, was hired by Countrywide in 2003 as Area Sales Manager and was a top producer in 2004-2005.
- Promotion in 2006 to manage a team was followed by a mass reduction-in-force that terminated him in March 2007.
- A planned interview for a Branch Manager position with Turini in March 2007 failed, and Turini was Caucasian of Greek descent known to favor hiring Caucasians of Greek descent.
- James worked at Massapequa Park; in August 2007 Donovan hired Horowitz (Caucasian) as co-Branch Manager, undermining James’s status and compensation.
- Internal complaints (Nov 2007 and Dec 2007) alleged discrimination; the branch was closed, James demoted to Sales Manager with lower compensation; May 2008 confrontation with Horowitz occurred; written counsels followed in 2008.
- Plaintiff filed SDHR charge in Oct 2008, with EEOC right-to-sue in July 2010; he filed suit in Oct 2010; district court granted partial dismissal and allowed amended pleading with leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Title VII discrimination claims | James’s timely conduct supports late-acting claims as background evidence. | Claims untimely for discrete acts pre-2008; only post-2008 acts are actionable. | Timely only for post-Jan 3, 2008 acts; earlier acts dismissed as time-barred but admissible as background evidence. |
| Sufficiency of Title VII discrimination claims | Racially biased slow processing and unequal treatment were discriminatory and plausibly adverse. | No material adverse changes; many events are not sufficiently connected to discrimination. | Dismissed majority; claim is plausibly sustained only for slow processing affecting compensation; remaining claims dismissed. |
| Title VII retaliation claims — timeliness and causation | Internal complaints and ensuing demotion/diminution were retaliatory actions. | Many actions were pre-2008 or not causally linked to protected activity. | Certain retaliation claims timely and plausible (November 2007 demotion), but most post-2008 written counsels and slowdowns fail for lack of causation. |
| Hostile work environment claims exhausted/related | Conduct alleged in the charge implied ongoing hostile environment. | Charge did not plead a hostile environment or the same conduct. | Hostile environment claims not reasonably related to the charge; dismissed. |
| NYHRL claims and election of remedies | SDHR findings should not bar NYHRL claims in federal court. | Election of remedies bars NYHRL claims where SDHR charge overlaps with the federal claim. | NYHRL claims dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under election of remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (claims must be plausible, not just speculative)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (two-step plausibility pleading standard)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts time-bar; background evidence permissible)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (Rule 8 notice pleading applies to discrimination claims)
- Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (U.S. 2004) (post-1991 § 1981 amendments; four-year limitations via § 1658(a))
- Harris v. City of New York, 186 F.3d 243 (2d Cir. 1999) (deferral state rule for Title VII limitations period)
- White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (materially adverse action standard in retaliation)
- Ganthier v. N. Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Sys., Inc., 345 F. Supp. 2d 271 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (Section 1981 uses Title VII standards; post-1991 amendments)
- La Grande v. DeCrescente Distrib. Co., Inc., 370 F. App’x 206 (2d Cir. 2010) (discrimination impacts on compensation may be actionable)
- Dickinson v. Barzingus, None (None) (not included in official reporter list)