Lugo v. City of New York, 518 F. App'x 28

Lugo sues the City of New York and several NYPD defendants for discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment under Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
District court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants; Lugo appeals.
Court applies de novo review to summary judgment, viewing evidence in Lugo’s favor where appropriate.
Most of Lugo’s claims are time-barred; standard Title VII/NYSHRL/NYCHRL timelines apply, with limitations period and right-to-sue letter considerations.
Ordinarily discrete discriminatory acts are time-barred; continuing violation exception requires a continuing policy with at least one act within the period.
Only Lugo’s termination discrimination claim and malicious prosecution claim remain potentially timely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are Lugo's claims time-barred?	Lugo asserts continuing violations and timely acts within period.	Most acts are discrete and untimely; no continuing policy shown.	Time-barred except termination claim and malicious prosecution.
Does Lugo state a prima facie Title VII/NYSHRL discrimination claim?	Disparate treatment evidenced by similarly situated officers.	Plaintiff failed to show similarly situated comparators and admissible personal-knowledge evidence.	No prima facie discrimination shown.
Did Lugo provide admissible evidence of discriminatory intent?	Officers' incidents show discriminatory animus.	Affidavits not based on personal knowledge and lack sufficient inference.	No evidence of discriminatory intent.
Is NYCHRL analyzed independently and more liberally, and does Lugo meet its standard?	NYCHRL liberal standard requires evidence of discrimination.	Even under liberal standard Lugo fails to show discrimination.	Lugo fails to meet even the liberal NYCHRL standard.
Do Lugo's remaining claims survive, including malicious prosecution?	Malicious prosecution supported by conduct during prosecution.	No viable Malicious prosecution showing under §1983.	Malicious prosecution claim survives; other claims fail.

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts start a new limitations period; continuing violation limited)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (prima facie case and burden of proof framework)
Sassaman v. Gamache, 566 F.3d 307 (2d Cir. 2009) (requirements for proving discriminatory intent)
Quinn v. Green Tree Credit Corp., 159 F.3d 759 (2d Cir. 1998) (timeliness and EEOC right-to-sue considerations)
Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) (statutory limitations for NYSHRL/NYCHRL actions)
Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (continuing violation; connection between acts)
Mandell v. County of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368 (2d Cir. 2003) (disparate treatment standard for prima facie case)
Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2009) (NYCHRL analyzed independently and liberally)
Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standards and evidence viewing)
Schwapp v. Town of Avon, 118 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 1997) (summary judgment standards; evidence admissibility)