271 F. Supp. 3d 646
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Lamarr-Arruz (Black) and Ansoralli (of Spanish/West Indian descent) were CVS Market Investigators who allege supervisors and some store managers instructed racial profiling of Black and Hispanic customers and used racial slurs.
- Market Investigators work across multiple CVS stores, report to Regional Loss Prevention Managers (RLPMs), and also interact with store managers; plaintiffs say supervisors Saliu and Salvatore led the discriminatory conduct.
- CVS’s Handbook forbids discrimination and provides reporting channels (supervisors, HR, and an ethics hotline), but plaintiffs say complaints were ignored, inconsistently escalated, or not documented.
- Lamarr-Arruz testified he repeatedly complained (including to HR and via the hotline), sought reassignment, had hours reduced, took medical leave, was obstructed in returning to work, and was ultimately terminated — claims he ties to retaliation for complaining about discrimination.
- Ansoralli testified she complained to supervisors and a store manager about racial comments and profiling; CVS argues she is not "Hispanic," but court finds ethnicity/race for § 1981 can include Spanish/West Indian ancestry.
- On summary judgment, the court found genuine disputes of material fact on hostile work environment (§ 1981, NYSHRL, NYCHRL) and on Lamarr-Arruz’s retaliation claim, so CVS’s motions were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were subjected to a hostile work environment based on race | Plaintiffs point to repeated racial slurs, orders to racially profile customers, and pervasive discriminatory culture | CVS contends some incidents are isolated, plaintiffs failed to show race-based animus for Ansoralli | Court: disputed facts exist; Lamarr-Arruz survives; reasonable jury could find Ansoralli’s Spanish/West Indian ancestry falls within § 1981 race/ethnicity protection |
| Whether alleged harassers (RLPMs and store managers) are supervisors for vicarious liability | Plaintiffs argue RLPMs and some store managers had authority affecting hours, assignments, and access to stores (tangible actions) | CVS contends store managers were not supervisors over Market Investigators | Court: genuine dispute; jury could find store managers and RLPMs had coextensive supervisory power, implicating employer liability |
| Whether CVS can invoke Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense (reasonable prevention/correction & employee unreasonably failed to use it) | Plaintiffs contend they used reporting channels or had no meaningful corrective avenue because complaints were ignored/not escalated | CVS points to Handbook, hotline, and reporting procedures as reasonable measures | Court: factual disputes whether reporting mechanisms were effective and whether plaintiffs reasonably used them — defense not established on summary judgment |
| Whether Lamarr-Arruz established retaliation (causation and pretext) | Lamarr-Arruz says he complained about racial profiling; CVS delayed/blocked return from leave and then terminated him; CVS’s proffered reasons are inconsistent and pretextual | CVS asserts termination was for exceeding medical leave and inability to accommodate sedentary work | Court: disputed facts on protected activity, timing, and shifting explanations; reasonable jury could find but-for causation and pretext; retaliation survives summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., Ltd. P’ship, 22 F.3d 1219 (trial court’s limited role at summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (drawing inferences against moving party)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (hostile work environment standard)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 570 U.S. 421 (definition of supervisor and vicarious liability)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (employer affirmative defense)
- Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (employer affirmative defense)
- Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (severity/pervasiveness analysis)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (objective and subjective hostile-work-environment test)
- Tolbert v. Smith, 790 F.3d 427 (pervasiveness requirement)
- Barrella v. Village of Freeport, 814 F.3d 594 (race includes ethnicity for § 1981 purposes)