958 F. Supp. 2d 461
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiff Maurice Pierre, a federal ICE Special Agent born in 1961, was injured on duty in May 2008 and took workers’ compensation leave and LWOP through May 2009; he returned to full duty October 5, 2009 and later transferred to RAC Castle Point in June 2010.
- During his leave and return, supervisors offered light-duty desk work, requested medical documentation for sick leave, temporarily coded him AWOL before restoring pay, and briefly withheld LEAP pay before correcting the error.
- Plaintiff alleged age and disability discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress; he filed an EEO complaint in 2009 and this lawsuit in 2011.
- Key contested events: (1) supervisor statements about job-series/termination risk while on extended leave; (2) May 2009 light-duty offer and brief duty-desk assignment; (3) requests for medical documentation and AWOL coding; (4) temporary LEAP denial; (5) vehicle reassignment and some allegedly mocking remarks by supervisors/co-workers.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment; the magistrate judge exercised 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) jurisdiction and granted summary judgment in full, dismissing all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII claim for age/disability discrimination | Pierre argued discriminatory treatment but pleaded Title VII | Def.: Title VII does not cover age or disability claims | Court: Dismissed Title VII claims (Title VII inapplicable) |
| Discrimination under ADEA/Rehabilitation Act (various acts: threats, light-duty, AWOL, LEAP, transfer, vehicle, remarks) | Pierre contends actions were discriminatory/hostile and disparate treatment vs younger agents | Def. proffers legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons (safety/medical guidance, OWCP/DOL clearance, administrative requirements, error corrected) | Court: No materially adverse actions or no evidence of pretext; summary judgment for defendant |
| Retaliation (EEO filing and complaints) | Pierre alleges adverse acts followed his protected complaints | Def.: actions were administrative, remedial, or temporally too remote and non-retaliatory | Court: No prima facie retaliation or no pretext; claims dismissed |
| Intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress (FTCA) | Pierre asserted emotional distress from employer conduct | Def.: FTCA claims improperly pled against agency/individuals and unaddressed administratively | Court: Dismissed; FTCA proper defendant is the United States and claims not pursued substantively |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party’s burden on summary judgment)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting for discrimination claims)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219 (2d Cir. 1994) (caution in granting summary judgment in discrimination cases)
- Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2004) (district court must verify record citations supporting Rule 56.1 statements)