Moll v. Telesector Resources Group, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14066
2d Cir.2014Background
- Moll alleges sex-based discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, and pay disparity in Verizon’s Buffalo office starting in 1998.
- District court dismissed hostile environment claims as time-barred for lacking sexually offensive acts within the limitations period.
- Moll’s supervisor changes (Irving, then Gaglione) and alleged retaliatory actions form the factual backdrop.
- Verizon relocated Moll to Syracuse (Dec 2004) and she took disability leave due to stress.
- Moll’s 2004 complaint referenced Title VII, NYSHRL, and EPA; EEOC notice to sue issued Aug 9, 2004.
- District court later granted summary judgment on some claims (promotion-delay reduced to one issue); Moll appealed multiple rulings, including discovery orders and summary judgment.]
- Note: The appeal focuses on hostile environment timing and discovery/summary judgment procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by dismissing hostile environment claims for timeliness | Moll argues totality of complaint includes non-sexual acts and continuing violations. | Verizon argues limitations bar based on sexually offensive acts within period. | Vacated; remanded for consideration of all incidents in totality. |
| Whether facially neutral incidents can support a sex-based hostile environment claim | Moll contends sex-neutral acts may be part of totality showing sex-based discrimination. | Verizon contends only sexual acts considered for actionable claims. | Vacated; remanded for consideration of all allegations. |
| Whether district court abused its discretion by denying Moll’s discovery requests (Requests 5 & 21) | Docs on RIF and comparators are relevant to discrimination/retaliation evidence. | Requests were irrelevant or confidential; no duty to disclose. | Vacated; remanded to compel production of requested documents. |
| Whether the district court erred by disregarding a witness’s later sworn statement conflicting with prior deposition | Gaglione’s declaration should be considered and may raise factual issues. | Sham affidavit doctrine should bar new contradictions. | Vacated; court should consider the later declaration on remand; sham affidavit doctrine limited to certain contexts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2002) (facially neutral incidents may be part of the totality of circumstances)
- Mack v. Otis Elevator Co., 326 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2003) (severe or pervasive standard for hostile environment)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (standard of severe or pervasive conduct)
- Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001) (totality of circumstances; sex-neutral incidents may count)
- Howley v. Town of Stratford, 217 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2000) (supports totality-of-circumstances approach)
- In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 707 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2013) (sham affidavit doctrine may apply to third-party witnesses)
- Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co., 895 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1990) (company-wide practices may reveal discrimination)
- Shomo v. City of New York, 579 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009) (de novo review standard for district court rulings)
- Fincher v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 604 F.3d 712 (2d Cir. 2010) (credibility decisions reside with jury; limits on disregarding testimony)