McGill v. The University of Rochester, 6:10-cv-06697

Plaintiff Katherine McGill, an African-American long-time University of Rochester employee, sues the University of Rochester and Karen Macdonald alleging employment discrimination.
Defendants move for summary judgment and to seal certain plaintiff exhibits; both motions are granted.
Plaintiff began as an operations coordinator in 2009, with initial duties including minutes and reporting, but claims training was delayed and she performed lower-level billing tasks.
Plaintiff alleges a pattern of performance issues, coaching, and a December 2009–January 2010 performance improvement plan (PIP) culminating in termination in March 2010.
Defendants contend McGill was not performing to job requirements, the new coordinator position was created with approval, and her termination was for legitimate performance reasons rather than race.
Watkins referred resumes and Macdonald interviewed McGill; a new coordinator position was created and later filled by others; McGill’s eventual replacement and termination are documented in the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McGill’s hiring was properly established as non-pretextual	McGill contends she was hired after a short interview and Watkins' deposition leaves questions.	McGill was hired by Macdonald after a qualifying interview; no material fact disputing the hiring.	No genuine issue; Macdonald hired McGill.
Whether termination was racially motivated or a result of performance issues	McGill argues race influenced termination despite performance concerns.	Termination based on documented performance deficiencies and PIP assessment.	Termination was for performance reasons, not race.
Whether the creation of a new Operations Coordinator position and replacement affected McGill’s claims	McGill asserts the new position was created to replace her with a friend.	Watkins approved the new position; Bridge hired to fill it; not a race-driven act.	New position created with approval; not racially motivated.
Whether plaintiff’s training, duties, and role misclassification support a discrimination claim	Training delay and misassignment to billing tasks show discriminatory treatment.	Plaintiff was not meeting job requirements; duties evolved and training completed.	No evidence of prohibited discrimination; claim rejected.

Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 365 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2004) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (U.S. 2003) (pretext framework in discrimination cases)
Garcia v. Hartford Police Dept., 706 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2013) (pretext evidence and McDonnell Douglas framework)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment evidence standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden on movant to show absence of evidence)
Gallagher v. Delaney, 139 F.3d 338 (2d Cir. 1998) (analysis of Title VII and NY Executive Law claims)
Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (2013) (purpose limits of civility code in Title VII)
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (judicial documents assumed accessible in court filings)