Martinez v. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
713 F. App'x 53
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Eunice Martinez, a Hispanic non-managerial employee at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (DPW), sued for race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, and NYSHRL after allegedly receiving lower raises and being denied a managerial upgrade.
- District Court granted summary judgment for DPW on all claims; Martinez appealed. The Second Circuit affirmed.
- Martinez alleged two discrimination theories: (1) lower salary raises for Hispanic employees vs. non-Hispanic coworkers, and (2) failure to upgrade her Managing Editor role to a managerial position because of race.
- Martinez also alleged retaliation after filing an EEOC charge: reduced raises and exclusion from meetings.
- DPW produced evidence that Martinez’s duties were administrative/clerical, not managerial, and documented performance issues—especially time/project management—over several years.
- The court found Martinez failed to establish prima facie discrimination or retaliation and that she offered no adequate evidence of pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pay discrimination (unequal raises) | Martinez: Hispanic employees received smaller percentage raises than non-Hispanic coworkers | DPW: Comparators do not perform substantially equal work; Martinez earned among highest salaries and sometimes exceeded others' raises | Held: No prima facie case; Martinez conceded her job was unique and comparators unequal, and record did not show systematic lower raises |
| Failure to upgrade position (promotion) | Martinez: Hispanic non-managers were not upgraded while some non-Hispanics were; her duties warranted upgrade | DPW: Position was administrative/clerical and managers cited performance deficiencies; legitimate business judgment | Held: No prima facie showing and, even if assumed, DPW offered nondiscriminatory reasons which Martinez failed to show were pretextual |
| Retaliation after EEOC filing | Martinez: After EEOC charge, raises reduced and meeting invitations stopped — temporal proximity shows causation | DPW: Actions were continuation/result of long-standing performance concerns predating EEOC filing | Held: No causal connection; adverse actions were part of gradual, pre-existing employment actions beginning years earlier |
| Pretext standard at summary judgment | Martinez: Employer's stated reasons were pretext for discrimination/retaliation | DPW: Provided documented, nondiscriminatory reasons (performance reviews, job duties) | Held: Martinez failed to present sufficient evidence that DPW’s reasons were false or that discrimination/retaliation was more likely than not the real reason |
Key Cases Cited
- Tolbert v. Smith, 790 F.3d 427 (2d Cir. 2015) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment and construing inferences against movant)
- Brown v. City of Syracuse, 673 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2012) (elements of prima facie discrimination case)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (burden-shifting framework under McDonnell Douglas)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Van Zant v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 80 F.3d 708 (2d Cir. 1996) (plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence that employer’s reasons are false and discrimination more likely than not)
- Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (2d Cir. 1995) (equal pay/equal work analysis)
- EEOC v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 768 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2014) (demanding equal work inquiry requirement)
- Zahorik v. Cornell Univ., 729 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984) (need for particularized evidence beyond raw statistics)
- Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000) (limitations of raw statistical evidence without additional proof)
- Grady v. Affiliated Cent., Inc., 130 F.3d 553 (2d Cir. 1997) (pretext evidence must permit inference that discrimination motivated action)
- Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (court will not second-guess employer’s business judgment absent unlawful motive)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (elements of a retaliation prima facie case)
- Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2001) (timing alone insufficient to establish retaliation when adverse actions began before protected activity)