Nunez v. State Of New York, 1:14-cv-06647

Background

Plaintiff Rosa Nunez, a DOCCS parole officer proceeding pro se, alleged sexual harassment by her supervisor Joseph Lima and subsequent retaliation after she complained (internal DOCCS complaint July 11, 2013; NYSDHR complaint October 2, 2013).
The court previously dismissed most claims but allowed retaliation claims to proceed based on two incidents: (1) Senior Parole Officer Miguel Medina “un-submitted” two of Nunez’s timesheets; and (2) a nearly one-month delay by Medina and Lima in processing a Violation of Parole (VOP) she submitted.
At summary judgment, the record showed neither incident produced any adverse consequences: the timesheets were re-submitted and approved (no lost pay) and the VOP was signed/dated by Nunez so any delay could not be attributed to her.
Nunez alleged other retaliatory acts, but the court had already characterized most as petty slights not actionable under Title VII/NYSHRL; she also asserted some new allegations at summary judgment without admissible evidence.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining Title VII retaliation claim (against DOCCS) and state/city-law claims (NYSHRL and NYCHRL against Lima). The court granted summary judgment on federal claims and the NYSHRL claim, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over NYCHRL claims (dismissed without prejudice).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nunez engaged in protected activity and employer knew	Nunez argued she filed internal and NYSDHR complaints; thus protected activity was established	Defendants did not dispute protected activity or awareness	Court assumed protected activity and employer awareness for analysis
Whether alleged actions were materially adverse under Title VII	Nunez argued timesheet rescission and VOP-processing delay were materially adverse and could harm promotions or expose her to discipline	Defendants argued neither act caused any injury, lost pay, discipline, or changed evaluations; some acts were rescinded or produced no consequences	Court held actions were not materially adverse as a matter of law (no injury/harm; insufficient to dissuade a reasonable worker)
Whether there was causal connection (and but-for causation) between protected activity and adverse acts	Nunez argued timing and context supported retaliation inference	Defendants pointed to lack of adverse consequences, evidence that similar acts affected others, and absence of proof linking acts to complaints	Court found plaintiff failed to show causation and Title VII retaliation claim failed as a matter of law
Whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state- and city-law claims	Nunez sought adjudication of NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims in federal court	Defendants moved to dismiss all remaining claims after federal claim disposition	Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction to dismiss NYSHRL claim (same standards as Title VII) but declined jurisdiction over NYCHRL claims (different standards), dismissing them without prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg’l Transp. Auth., 743 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2014) (elements and materiality standard for retaliation)
Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (materially adverse standard: dissuade a reasonable worker)
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (retaliation requires but-for causation)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (scope of actionable retaliation under Title VII)
Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2003) (examples of adverse employment actions)
Kolari v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2006) (principles on declining supplemental jurisdiction)
Tracy v. Freshwater, 623 F.3d 90 (2d Cir. 2010) (special solicitude for pro se plaintiffs)