Jones v. Onondaga County Resource Recovery Agency
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135415
| N.D.N.Y. | 2013Background
- OCRRA is a public benefit corporation managing Onondaga County solid waste with Ley Creek and Rock Cut transfer stations; a 15-member Board oversees OCRRA and Donnelly is the Chair.
- Rhoads is OCRRA’s former Executive Director; Fontanella manages Ley Creek and Rock Cut; Nosik handles personnel complaints; Cooper supervises transfer workers.
- Plaintiff, African-American, was hired in 1987 and promoted to MEO III at Ley Creek in 2010; he served as the Union steward from 2005 to 2012.
- CBA governs OCRRA and the Union, with articles reserving management rights and seniority-based adjustments to temporary vacancies; arbitration in 2010 held seniority-based selection for two-week vacancies.
- Most relevant disputes concern the assignment of temporary plant operator positions at Ley Creek based on seniority versus other criteria, and alleged discriminatory conduct and retaliation.
- Plaintiff filed NYSDHR complaint in 2009 alleging race discrimination; NYSDHR found no probable cause and EEOC adopted that finding; this federal case followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NYSHRL claims are barred by election of remedies | Plaintiff says NYSDHR claims are kept alive in federal court. | OCRRA contends NYSHRL claims barred after NYSDHR filing and dismissal for lack of probable cause. | NYSHRL claims barred; summary judgment for Defendants on those claims. |
| Whether Title VII claims against individuals/official capacity survive | Plaintiff asserts race discrimination and retaliation by individual defendants. | Individual capacity claims under Title VII barred; official-capacity claims redundant. | Title VII claims dismissed against individuals in both capacities. |
| Whether Title VII retaliation claims are time-barred or saved by continuing violation | Plaintiff alleges acts within 300-day period and continuing violations. | Discrete acts outside period; continuing violation doctrine not applicable given lack of policy. | Retaliation claims time-barred; continuing violation doctrine not applicable; these claims dismissed. |
| Whether plaintiff’s discrimination claims under Title VII/§1981/§1983 survive on the merits | Discriminatory selection for temporary plant operator based on race. | OCRRA had legitimate, non-discriminatory reason (seniority/qualification); no pretext shown. | Plaintiff failed to show pretext; discrimination claims granted summary judgment for Defendants. |
| Whether plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims survive | Plaintiff alleges a pervasive race-based hostile environment. | Record shows only sporadic conduct; not sufficiently severe or pervasive. | Hostile environment claims dismissed for lack of exhaustion and failure to show severe/continuous harassment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (severe or pervasive standard for hostile work environment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (test for discrimination under a burden-shifting framework (referenced as context))
- Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) ( Title VII individual liability limits and scope (cited for framework))
- Estate of Hamilton v. City of New York, 627 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2010) (prima facie case framework for discrimination in promotions)
- Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) (prima facie showing and burden shifting in discrimination cases)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (liability and proof in hostile environment and retaliation theories)
- Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (requires but-for causation standard for retaliation claims)