Patel v. City of New York
699 F. App'x 67
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Piyush Patel sued the City of New York and individual supervisors alleging race and national-origin failure-to-promote and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, the NY State HRL, and the NYC HRL.
- Patel challenged three promotions: two awarded to Anna Colares (Caucasian) — one to Executive Assistant/Project Manager (Mar 2009) and later Executive Director of Space & Design — and one promoting Antonio Cinquepalmi to Chief Construction Project Manager.
- District Court granted summary judgment to defendants; Patel appealed. The Second Circuit reviewed whether Patel made prima facie showings and whether he rebutted the City’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.
- Key factual comparisons centered on qualifications: Patel asserted greater experience versus Colares, and lacked demonstrated health/safety or asbestos expertise compared to Cinquepalmi.
- Patel also asserted retaliation based on a 2009 email and later employment actions (performance rating adjustments and a 2014 disciplinary memo). The court examined whether the email constituted protected activity and whether the adverse actions were materially adverse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to promote to Executive Director of Space & Design | Patel contends City promoted Colares instead of him | City says Patel did not apply or show posting; no prima facie case | Patel failed to show he applied or was relieved from applying; prima facie fails |
| Failure to promote to Executive Assistant/Project Manager | Patel argues he was more experienced and thus more qualified than Colares | City offers legitimate nondiscriminatory hire; experience alone insufficient to show discrimination | Even if prima facie met, Patel did not rebut nondiscriminatory reason; greater experience alone insufficient |
| Failure to promote to Chief Construction Project Manager (Cinquepalmi) | Patel says he was entitled to promotion | City points to Cinquepalmi’s MS in Environmental/Occupational Health and asbestos licenses relevant to job duties | Patel did not show comparable qualifications or that job description was inaccurate; City’s reason stands |
| Retaliation (2009 email and later employment actions) | Patel says 2009 email and subsequent ratings/memo were retaliatory | City argues email did not allege race/national-origin discrimination and actions were not materially adverse or were unrelated | 2009 email not protected activity under §1981; rating/memo not sufficiently adverse or causally connected to suit; retaliation claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Ruiz v. County of Rockland, 609 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2010) (applies McDonnell Douglas to §1981/§1983 discrimination)
- Estate of Hamilton v. City of New York, 627 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2010) (prima facie elements for failure‑to‑promote)
- Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2001) (greater experience alone does not prove discriminatory pretext)
- Ya‑Chen Chen v. City Univ. of New York, 805 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2015) (retaliation claims under McDonnell Douglas)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (standard for materially adverse action in retaliation claims)