Murphy v. Department of Educ. of the City of New York
155 A.D.3d 637
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Linda Murphy, a junior high school teacher in Brooklyn, sued the NYC Department of Education under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), alleging age-based discrimination.
- Amended complaint alleged repeated discriminatory acts by the principal and assistant principal over more than three years.
- Plaintiff asserted two types of adverse actions: (1) “unsatisfactory” annual performance evaluations, and (2) constructive discharge resulting from a hostile work environment.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a); Supreme Court (Kings County) granted the motion.
- On appeal, the Second Department reviewed whether the complaint sufficiently pleaded an adverse employment action, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge under ADEA standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the alleged “unsatisfactory” evaluations constitute an adverse employment action for ADEA purposes? | The negative annual evaluations were adverse acts that support an ADEA claim. | The evaluations are time-barred (occurred >300 days before EEOC filing) and cannot independently qualify as adverse actions. | Held: Evaluations are time-barred and cannot independently satisfy the adverse-action element. |
| Does the alleged conduct amount to a hostile work environment under the ADEA? | Repeated harassing acts (omissions, assignments, yelling, slamming table, etc.) created an abusive work environment. | The incidents were isolated/episodic and not sufficiently severe or pervasive to be objectively hostile. | Held: Conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to establish a hostile work environment. |
| Can a hostile work environment support a constructive discharge claim? | The cumulative harassment forced Murphy to resign, so constructive discharge is established. | Even if hostile, the alleged conduct did not make conditions intolerable to a reasonable person; plaintiff failed to use available remedies. | Held: Plaintiff failed to plead working conditions intolerable to a reasonable person; constructive discharge not shown. |
| Did the amended complaint state a viable ADEA claim overall? | Combined allegations (evaluations + hostile environment + constructive discharge) suffice to plead an adverse employment action. | The complaint did not plead an adverse employment action or meet the ADEA elements. | Held: Complaint failed to allege an adverse employment action; dismissal under CPLR 3211(a) affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp., 152 A.D.3d 806 (discussing CPLR 3211(a)(7) liberal pleading standard)
- Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83 (pleading construction rules on dismissal motions)
- Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128 (2d Cir.) (elements for ADEA prima facie and adverse action analysis)
- Natl. R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (timeliness of discrete acts and hostile work environment treatment)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (hostile-environment standards; severity required)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (objective/subjective hostile work environment test)
- Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir.) (severity/pervasiveness standard)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129 (constructive discharge requires intolerable conditions)
- Chertkova v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 81 (2d Cir.) (disagreement over performance not usually constructive discharge)