Kelly v. Howard I. Shapiro & Associates Consulting Engineers, P.C.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8496
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Kelly, a longtime HR manager, left a family-owned engineering firm after raising concerns about a supervisor’s affair with a subordinate.
- She alleged the affair caused widespread sexual favoritism, degrading her authority and leading to job detriments.
- Her complaint asserted hostile environment and retaliation under Title VII and NYSHRL.
- The district court dismissed all claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- This appeal challenges the retaliation dismissal, while hostile environment claims were not challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kelly’s retaliation claim is plausibly alleged. | Kelly argues she had protected activity opposing discrimination. | Defendants contend Kelly failed to show a good-faith belief of gender-based discrimination. | Retaliation claim failed; no reasonable, good-faith belief of Title VII violation shown. |
| Whether Kelly’s complaint shows a protected Title VII activity. | Kelly contends her complaints about favoritism were protected. | Defendants argue the complaints did not allege sex-based discrimination or prohibited conduct. | No; complaints did not reasonably indicate gender-based discrimination. |
| Whether the hostile environment claim was properly dismissed as to gender-based discrimination. | Not asserted on appeal; underlying theory relied on discrimination based on sex. | Hostile environment claims require sex-based motivation, which was not alleged. | Court notes hostile environment claim was rightly dismissed for lack of sex-based motive. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeCintio v. Westchester Cnty. Med. Ctr., 807 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1986) (sex-based discrimination requires gender-oriented motivation)
- Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2002) (sex-based hostile environment requires sex-based causation)
- Gregory v. Daly, 243 F.3d 687 (2d Cir. 2001) (protective activity must be reasonable belief of unlawful discrimination)
- Galdieri-Ambrosini v. Nat'l Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 1998) (need for objective reasonableness in protected activity belief)
- Manoharan v. Columbia Univ. Coll. of Physicians & Surgeons, 842 F.2d 590 (2d Cir. 1988) (complaints must point to conduct prohibited by law to be protected)
- Wimmer v. Suffolk Cnty. Police Dep’t, 176 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 1999) (opposition to discrimination must target employer’s unlawful practices)
- Voels v. New York, 180 F. Supp. 2d 508 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (retaliation analysis depends on reasonable belief regarding discrimination)
- Drinkwater v. Union Carbide Corp., 904 F.2d 853 (3d Cir. 1990) (demeaning conduct not necessarily gender-based discrimination)
- Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2002) (retaliation doctrine requires protected activity with reasonable belief)