Morales v. New York State Department of Labor
530 F. App'x 13
2d Cir.2013Background
- Morales appeals district court judgment in favor of DOL on Title VII retaliation claim after jury trial and district court’s partial summary judgment ruling.
- The retaliation claim requires evidence of protected activity; Morales pointed to February 2006 activity but did not show earlier protected activity.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment restricting retaliation evidence to events on or after February 16, 2006.
- Morales argued additional informal complaints showed earlier protected activity; this argument was not raised at summary judgment and is forfeited.
- The court reviewed summary judgment de novo and reviewed evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion; the district court admitted/disallowed evidence consistent with Rule 403 balancing.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding no reversible errors in the summary judgment posture or evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the retaliation claim was properly limited to events after Feb. 16, 2006 | Morales argues earlier protected activity exists | DOL showed no earlier protected activity | Affirmed partial summary judgment on events after Feb. 16, 2006 |
| Whether Morales forfeited earlier protected-activity arguments for not raising them at summary judgment | Forfeiture should not bar review of earlier activity | Not raised at summary judgment; forfeited | Forfeiture applied; arguments not reviewed |
| Whether district court abused its discretion in evidentiary rulings | Discriminatory acts evidence should be fully admitted | Evidence limited by Rule 403 to protect trial focus | No manifest error; rulings affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuebel v. Black & Decker Inc., 643 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard guidance; de novo review on appeal)
- Schiano v. Quality Payroll Sys., Inc., 445 F.3d 597 (2d Cir. 2006) (protected activity requirement for retaliation claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment burden and evidence standard)
- Amnesty Am. v. Town of W. Hartford, 288 F.3d 467 (2d Cir. 2002) (required party to cite record; no independent record review by court)
- Schipani v. McLeod, 541 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2008) (forfeiture/waiver distinction in raising arguments on summary judgment)
- Katel L.L.C. v. AT&T Corp., 607 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2010) (forfeiture of arguments not raised below)
- SR Int’l Bus. Ins. Co. v. World Trade Ctr. Properties, LLC, 467 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)