626 F. App'x 308
2d Cir.2015Background
- Gregory Jarrell, an African-American respiratory therapist employed by Hospital for Special Care, was issued an April 11, 2011 disciplinary memorandum and reassigned after a March 18, 2011 patient-incident and an April 2 memorandum questioning his clinical documentation.
- The reassignment moved Jarrell from a satellite campus to the main campus for "re-education," closer supervision, and additional training; the Hospital explained it was concerned about his documentation of patient care.
- Jarrell complained to the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH) and later was terminated; he sued alleging race discrimination (42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, CFEPA), retaliation (Section 1981 and Title VII), and disability discrimination (ADA and CFEPA).
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Hospital; Jarrell appealed. The Second Circuit reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo and affirms.
- The court applied McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting to discrimination claims and held: (1) Jarrell failed to show similarly situated comparators or pretext on race claims; (2) his DPH complaint did not constitute protected activity for Title VII/§1981 retaliation; and (3) his requested leave was essentially indefinite, so not a reasonable ADA accommodation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination (Section 1981, Title VII, CFEPA) | Hospital disciplined and reassigned Jarrell for reasons pretextual; Caucasian co-workers who failed to act were not disciplined, supporting inference of discrimination | Reassignment and memorandum were non-discriminatory responses to concerns about Jarrell's clinical documentation; alleged co-workers were not shown to be similarly situated | Affirmed: Jarrell failed to show similarly situated comparators or that Hospital's reason was pretextual; summary judgment for Hospital upheld |
| Retaliation (Title VII, §1981) | Termination was retaliatory for Jarrell's DPH complaint; causation should go to jury | DPH complaint did not allege race discrimination and thus was not protected activity under Title VII/§1981 | Affirmed: DPH complaint did not constitute protected activity opposing statutorily prohibited discrimination, so no retaliation claim |
| Disability discrimination / reasonable accommodation (ADA, CFEPA) | Doctors' notes indicated a finite 14-week disability; leave was reasonable and not indefinite | Jarrell sought essentially indefinite leave, offered no follow-up to set return date, so accommodation unreasonable | Affirmed: Jarrell requested indeterminate leave and failed to demonstrate a reasonable accommodation; summary judgment for Hospital proper |
| Adverse action element (implicit) | April 11 memorandum and reassignment constituted adverse actions | Hospital argued they were not adverse actions | Court did not need to decide because plaintiff failed on other elements (comparators/pretext, protected activity, reasonableness of accommodation) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (Sup. Ct.) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (summary judgment in employment cases—factual inferences to nonmovant)
- Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 1995) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Ruiz v. County of Rockland, 609 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2010) (applying McDonnell Douglas to Title VII and §1981 claims)
- Kaytor v. Electric Boat Corp., 609 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (retaliation and title vii analysis)
- Cruz v. Coach Stores, Inc., 202 F.3d 560 (2d Cir. 2000) (protected activity defined as opposing statutorily prohibited discrimination)
- Sista v. CDC Ixis N. Am., Inc., 445 F.3d 161 (2d Cir. 2006) (McDonnell Douglas framework applied to ADA claims)
- Graves v. Finch Pruyn & Co., 457 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2006) (finite leave as reasonable accommodation can create triable issue)
- Parker v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 204 F.3d 326 (2d Cir. 2000) (employer not required to hold position open indefinitely for recovery)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (retaliation claims under Title VII and §1981 analyzed similarly)