Marshall v. New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance
1:12-cv-00014
N.D.N.Y.Nov 19, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Monique A. Marshall, an African‑American woman of Guyanese descent, was hired by OTDA in April 2006 as a Housing Specialist I.
- In May 2008 Marshall’s supervisor retired; workloads were redistributed among unit staff and Marshall received additional help (interns, reassignment of some duties) to address workload concerns.
- A civil service exam for Housing Specialist II (grade 23) was held in January 2009; several provisional Housing Specialist II employees were later permanently appointed after scoring higher (or equal) to Marshall.
- Marshall complained internally about workload in August 2009 and met with supervisors; an August 25 memorandum reflected relief of several duties to reduce her workload/anxiety.
- Marshall filed a formal EOD complaint on August 31, 2009 asserting discrimination and retaliation based on race/national origin; OTDA moved for summary judgment and the court granted it, dismissing her Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OTDA unlawfully increased Marshall's workload because of race/national origin (Title VII discrimination) | Marshall contends workload was increased and duties assigned discriminatorily because of her race/national origin | OTDA says workload change resulted from supervisor retirement and redistribution; actions were nondiscriminatory and remedial measures were taken | Court: No actionable discrimination; OTDA offered legitimate reasons and Marshall failed to show pretext |
| Whether OTDA unlawfully failed to promote Marshall to Housing Specialist II (Title VII discrimination) | Marshall alleges she was passed over for promotion due to race/national origin | OTDA explains provisional incumbents with qualifying exam scores were made permanent; hiring other candidates would have required unlikely budget approval | Court: No discrimination; promotion decisions had legitimate nondiscriminatory bases and no evidence of pretext |
| Whether Marshall engaged in protected activity before adverse actions (Title VII retaliation) | Marshall asserts she complained to EOD and supervisors and was retaliated against | OTDA argues alleged adverse actions occurred before Marshall complained of discrimination based on protected characteristics; earlier complaints did not mention race/national origin | Court: No retaliation; protected complaint asserting discrimination occurred after the contested actions, and earlier complaints were general unfair‑treatment claims not protected under Title VII |
| Whether Marshall produced sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment | Marshall relies on deposition testimony and allegations, including one remark by a supervisor and her conclusory beliefs | OTDA emphasizes lack of record evidence linking actions to discriminatory animus and points to contemporaneous documents showing workload relief and selection based on exam scores | Court: Marshall's conclusory assertions and isolated remark insufficient; summary judgment granted for OTDA |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Brown v. City of Syracuse, 673 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2012) (elements of prima facie Title VII discrimination case)
- Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) (plaintiff must prove employer’s reason was pretext)
- Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (clarifies plaintiff’s burden to show employer’s reason is pretext)
- St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff must show both falsity of employer’s reason and discriminatory motive)
- Kelly v. Howard I. Shapiro & Assocs. Consulting Eng’rs, P.C., 716 F.3d 10 (2d Cir. 2013) (protected activity requires good‑faith reasonable belief that conduct violated Title VII)
- McMenemy v. City of Rochester, 241 F.3d 279 (2d Cir. 2001) (elements of Title VII retaliation prima facie case)
- Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000) (non‑movant must rebut employer’s legitimate reasons with specific evidence of pretext)
- Wagner v. Swarts, 827 F. Supp. 2d 85 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (district court summary judgment standard reference)