Kirkland v. Cablevision Systems
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14223
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Garry Kirkland, the only African-American Area Operations Manager (AOM) at Cablevision in 2008, sued under Title VII alleging race discrimination and retaliation after his termination.
- District Court initially granted Cablevision summary judgment on discrimination claims, denied it on retaliation, then on reconsideration granted summary judgment to Cablevision on retaliation and dismissed pendent state claims.
- Cablevision relied on negative performance reviews and affidavits from three regional managers (all African-American) as legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for firing Kirkland.
- Kirkland, proceeding pro se, submitted evidence alleging pretext: testimony from Kathryn Nivins about supervisory statements, alleged selective criticism by supervisor Robert Cockerill, and claims that HR managers falsified/back-dated documents.
- Additional evidence included HR notes reflecting complaints, contemporaneous meeting notes showing Kirkland’s complaints about disparate treatment and lack of follow-up, and statements attributed to supervisors suggesting racial bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cablevision’s stated reasons for terminating Kirkland were pretext for race discrimination | Kirkland argues the negative reviews and supporting affidavits were fabricated/contrived; proffers statements showing racial animus and selective treatment | Cablevision argues poor performance and affidavits from regional managers legitimately justify termination | Vacated summary judgment — disputed evidence could permit a jury to find pretext and discriminatory motive |
| Whether Cablevision’s actions were retaliatory (Title VII) | Kirkland contends he repeatedly complained to HR about race discrimination and was fired in retaliation | Cablevision contends termination was for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons (performance) | Vacated summary judgment — evidence could support a but-for causal link between complaints and adverse action |
| Applicability of McDonnell Douglas burden‑shifting at summary judgment | Kirkland maintains he made prima facie showings; evidence raises inference of discrimination/retaliation | Cablevision invoked legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, shifting burden back to Kirkland to show pretext | Court applied McDonnell Douglas and found disputed facts preclude summary judgment for employer |
| Dismissal of pendent state-law claims after summary judgment | Kirkland argued state claims depended on surviving federal claims | Cablevision argued federal dismissal justified dropping state claims | Vacated district court’s grant of summary judgment on federal claims; pendent state claims remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for granting summary judgment and drawing inferences)
- Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 1994) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (applying McDonnell Douglas framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Kwan v. Andalex Group LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013) (but‑for causation standard for retaliation)
- Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (retaliation requires but‑for causation)
- Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg’l Transp. Auth., 743 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2012) (vacatur of summary judgment where disputed facts for jury)