Moll v. Telesector
94 F.4th 218
2d Cir.2024Background
- Cindy Moll was a Verizon sales engineer (SE) from 1990–2007; she alleges long‑running sex‑based harassment, a hostile workplace, retaliation, and unequal pay.
- Multiple coworkers and managers made sexually explicit comments and advances (notably supervisor Daniel Irving); complaints to HR allegedly produced little remedial action.
- In late 2004 Verizon ordered Buffalo‑based SE positions (including Moll’s) moved to Syracuse (~160 miles away); employees were told to accept the transfer, find another job, or take severance; Moll was restricted from teleworking and later required to be physically present several days/week.
- The Syracuse attendance requirement and related pressures led Moll to take disability leave; the SEs were later returned to Buffalo after a merger; Moll resumed work but was laid off in a 2007 RIF.
- Moll sued under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the Equal Pay Act; after discovery and a remand from this Court, the district court granted summary judgment for Verizon; this Court affirms in part but vacates and remands on hostile‑work‑environment, retaliatory transfer, retaliatory/discriminatory termination, and the EPA claim vis‑à‑vis one comparator (Spencer).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hostile work environment | Moll: repeated sexually explicit comments, managers’ participation/inaction, and adverse effects created an objectively and subjectively hostile environment | Verizon: incidents were isolated, not severe or pervasive enough to be objectively hostile | Court: Genuine disputes of material fact exist; summary judgment improper on hostile‑work‑environment claim |
| Retaliatory transfer to Syracuse | Moll: transfer (and stringent attendance rules) was retaliation for EEOC complaints and would dissuade a reasonable employee (esp. a mother) | Verizon: transfer affected men and women equally; alternatives (other job or severance) made transfer non‑adverse; Moll rarely reported to Syracuse | Court: Record viewed in Moll’s favor shows triable issues on material adversity and retaliatory motive; vacated dismissal and remanded |
| Discriminatory/retaliatory termination (RIF) | Moll: selection for layoff pretextual—she solved major client problem, client sought her assignment, and similarly situated male Shelton kept job; managers had animus and lacked objective criteria | Verizon: legitimate non‑discriminatory RIF reason—Moll lacked necessary post‑merger skills; numerically more men were laid off | Court: Credibility inferences and record produce triable issues as to pretext, motive, and comparability; summary judgment improper; remanded |
| Equal Pay Act (and Title VII pay claim) | Moll: paid less than male SEs (Spencer, Winley, Dean) for substantially similar work | Verizon: pay differentials were job‑related (hiring market, distinct technical skills) and not sex‑based | Held: Title VII pay claim abandoned; EPA claims fail as to Winley and Dean (different job/skills) but genuine issue remains as to comparator Spencer; EPA claim against Spencer survives summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Kaytor v. Electric Boat Corp., 609 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standards and drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
- Davis‑Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 921 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2019) (court must review record as a whole and not piece‑meal evidence)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (plaintiff's evidence must be taken as a whole and inferences drawn in favor of nonmovant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for summary judgment and genuine issue of material fact)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation: materially adverse actions judged from reasonable employee perspective; context matters)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (hostile‑work‑environment objective/subjective test)
- Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (hostile work environment legal principles)
- Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (2d Cir. 1995) (Equal Pay Act prima facie elements and employer burden)
- Belfi v. Prendergast, 191 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 1999) (EPA protects against sex‑based pay disparities and strict‑liability nature)
- Moll v. Telesector Res. Grp., Inc., 760 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2014) (prior appellate remand addressing discovery and treating witness declarations at summary judgment)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., LP, 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir. 1994) (circumstantial evidence sufficient to support discrimination claim)