Kozak v. Office Depot, Inc.
1:16-cv-00943-LJV-JJM
W.D.N.Y.May 16, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Joann Kozak sued Office Depot, LLC, asserting claims including hostile work environment, age and disability discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation.
- A magistrate judge recommended denying summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim, granting it as to age and disability discrimination, and granting summary judgment on sex discrimination and retaliation claims.
- The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendations in part, denying summary judgment for hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and retaliation, but granting it for age and disability discrimination.
- Office Depot moved for reconsideration regarding the sex discrimination and retaliation claims, arguing that the court misapplied the facts and law.
- The court denied the motion for reconsideration, and this decision explains the detailed reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex Discrimination | Kozak alleges adverse action after rejecting a supervisor's advances | Termination was for lying, not rejection of advances | Summary judgment denied; juror could infer sex-based animus |
| Retaliation | Kozak claims retaliation after reporting alleged harassment | Kozak did not complain about sexual harassment before termination | Summary judgment denied; Kozak availed herself of complaint process |
| Adequacy of Investigation | Kozak alleges Office Depot’s HR investigation was inadequate and biased | Investigation followed normal process, not influenced by discrimination or retaliation | Sufficient dispute for trial; summary judgment denied |
| Weight of Plaintiff’s Testimony | Kozak’s sworn statements support her claims | Plaintiff’s testimony is ‘self-serving’ and should be discounted | Plaintiff’s testimony must be credited at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., 935 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2019) (reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, rarely granted)
- Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (reconsideration only if controlling overlooked facts/decisions)
- Knox v. CRC Mgmt. Co., 134 F.4th 39 (2d Cir. 2025) (a nonmovant’s "self-serving" statements can defeat summary judgment)
- Danzer v. Norden Sys., Inc., 151 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1998) (courts should not weigh credibility at the summary judgment stage)