Reppert v. Martinez Santiago
1:19-cv-01518
| N.D.N.Y. | Mar 25, 2024Background
- Plaintiff James A. Reppert, acting pro se, was employed by the New York State Department of State (DOS) in its Office of Planning, Development & Community Infrastructure (OPDCI) and alleged he was retaliated against after complaining of racial discrimination.
- Reppert complained in 2016 to the DOS Division of Affirmative Action about race discrimination by supervisor Ridler, which was substantiated, resulting in Ridler's demotion and eventual retirement.
- Following upper management turnover, Reppert sought consideration and advocated for promotions within OPDCI but was not selected for vacant leadership positions.
- In 2018, Reppert applied for promotion to CRS 3; he was not selected, ranking last among candidates; another employee, Wojtowicz, received the promotion.
- Reppert alleged retaliatory incidents by DOS management, including hostile meetings, negative personnel file entries, and minor workplace slights, all following his discrimination complaints and EEOC charge (filed July 2017).
- Reppert filed suit under Title VII for retaliation, and DOS moved for summary judgment. Reppert also sought to reopen discovery after the close of the period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to Promote as Retaliation | Was not promoted due to prior discrimination complaints | Not promoted due to poor interview performance | For Defendant; no evidence of retaliation |
| Adverse Employment Actions (hostile behavior, etc.) | Incidents were retaliatory actions for protected activity | Incidents were minor or justified for business reasons | For Defendant; not materially adverse |
| Causal Connection Between Complaints & Actions | Temporal proximity & management changes show causal link | No close proximity; management unaware of new charges | For Defendant; causal link not shown |
| Motion to Reopen Discovery | Needs more evidence to prove retaliation/pretext | No diligence; request is speculative, untimely | Denied; no good cause to reopen |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard involves showing absence of a genuine issue of material fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (defining materiality and genuine dispute at summary judgment)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (expands the definition of adverse employment actions in retaliation claims)
- Univ. of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (requires "but-for" causation in Title VII retaliation claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Summa v. Hofstra Univ., 708 F.3d 115 (outlines elements for a prima facie Title VII retaliation case)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (minor workplace slights not actionable as retaliation)