Kwan v. The Andalex Group LLC
737 F.3d 834
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Zann Kwan was hired as Vice President of Acquisitions at Andalex (Apr 2007–Sept 2008); she was an at-will, six-figure employee who reported to company officers and was fired Sept 26, 2008.
- Kwan alleges she complained to Alex Silverman on Sept 3, 2008 about gender discrimination and three weeks later was terminated; Andalex contends termination stemmed from a business shift, poor performance, and misconduct.
- Andalex initially told the EEOC the primary reason for Kwan’s termination was a shift from domestic real estate to international hospitality/gaming and contemporaneously terminated a male employee; later explanations emphasized performance errors and workplace behavior.
- Procedural history: District Court granted Andalex summary judgment dismissing Kwan’s Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL discrimination/retaliation/hostile-work-environment claims and dismissed a COBRA/ERISA statutory-penalty claim for lack of demonstrated prejudice; Kwan appealed.
- The Second Circuit declined to consider Kwan’s hostile-work-environment claim because it was raised for the first time in opposition to summary judgment, affirmed the COBRA dismissal, and vacated the summary judgment dismissal of her retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment (Title VII/NYSHRL/NYCHRL) | Kwan alleged a hostile environment based on gender (raised in opposition to summary judgment). | Andalex sought dismissal. | Court refused to consider because claim was first raised in opposition to summary judgment; dismissal affirmed. |
| Retaliation (Title VII/NYSHRL/NYCHRL) | Kwan argues she engaged in protected complaint (Sept 3), Andalex knew, she suffered adverse action (firing), and temporal proximity plus inconsistent employer explanations show retaliation was a but‑for cause. | Andalex contends it legitimately fired Kwan for business reorganization, poor performance, and misconduct; decisionmakers lacked knowledge of her complaint. | Prima facie case satisfied (corporate knowledge imputes notice; three-week proximity supports causation). Court held material disputes (inconsistent, shifting explanations + proximity) preclude summary judgment on retaliation; vacated dismissal and remanded. |
| COBRA / ERISA statutory penalties | Kwan claims she did not receive timely COBRA notice and suffered harm (medical expenses, delayed care, emotional distress). | Andalex / Paychex say notification was sent or delay was inadvertent; no bad faith and plaintiff not prejudiced monetarily. | District Court’s refusal to award statutory penalties affirmed: no evidence of bad faith and plaintiff showed only minimal unreimbursed expenses and no concrete prejudice. |
| Summary judgment standard / causation under Nassar | Kwan contends prima facie and pretext evidence suffice; under McDonnell Douglas and temporal proximity she can survive summary judgment. | Andalex emphasized that Nassar requires but‑for causation and argued plaintiff cannot show retaliation was the but‑for cause. | Court applied McDonnell Douglas and Nassar: but‑for standard governs Title VII retaliation, but prima facie causation can be shown indirectly. Here evidence suffices to create triable issues on but‑for causation for retaliation claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (retaliation claims require but‑for causation)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. review of summary judgment in employment cases)
- Devlin v. Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 274 F.3d 76 (factors for ERISA statutory penalty discretion)