513 F. App'x 81
2d Cir.2013Background
- Cutler alleged religion and sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII and CFEPA, and retaliation after filing a complaint with the CCHRO.
- He claimed continued full-time status required forty hours per week, unlike some non-Jewish/heterosexual coworkers who worked less but still received full-time benefits.
- Time records showed coworkers averaged more than forty hours in a seven-day period; Cutler averaged 32.25 hours per week.
- Cutler did not produce the time sheets at issue and could not show coworkers were directed to work forty hours or that his hours were treated differently.
- District court granted summary judgment for Stop & Shop; the Second Circuit affirmed, and commented on counsel’s performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination under Title VII/CFEPA | Cutler asserts discriminatory hours and treatment based on religion/sexual orientation. | Stop & Shop contends no comparable evidence shows discriminatory impact or intent. | No inference of discrimination; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Causation in retaliation claim | Cutler claims retaliation after CCHRO complaint based on timing. | Action began before protected activity; no causal link. | No causal connection; retaliation claims fail. |
| Evidence sufficiency and record support | Time sheets and personal observations show differential treatment. | Insufficient admissible evidence; deposition records inadequate. | Insufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (prima facie discrimination framework)
- Kaytor v. Elec. Boat Corp., 609 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (same analysis for CFEPA claims)
- McGuinness v. Lincoln Hall, 263 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2001) (similar evidence comparison for discrimination)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (evidence standard for summary judgment)
- Hicks v. Bains, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (causation analysis in retaliation case)
- Gordon v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2000) (retaliation and evidentiary standards)
- Amnesty Am. v. Town of W. Hartford, 361 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2004) (attorney conduct and sanctions remarks by court)
- United States v. Rogers, 16 F. App’x 38 (2d Cir. 2001) (court procedure and advocacy conduct reference)