640 F. App'x 77
2d Cir.2016Background
- Riddle, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's 12(b)(6) dismissal of claims under Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and state/city law.
- The panel reviews de novo the district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, applying plausibility pleading standards from Twombly and Iqbal.
- Riddle waived discrimination claims based on disability, race, age, and gender by not arguing them in her brief.
- The court thus does not consider those waived claims and focuses on retaliation claims.
- The district court dismissed the retaliation claim for failure to plausibly plead causation between protected activity and adverse action.
- The court notes state and city law claims require independent analysis and ultimately fail on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retaliation claim is plausibly pled | Riddle alleges retaliation for prior discrimination activity. | Temporal proximity is insufficient without a causal nexus; no other supporting facts. | Retaliation claim dismissed; not plausibly pled. |
| Whether waived discrimination claims are reviewable | Discrimination claims should be considered despite waiver. | Waived claims are not reviewed on appeal. | Waived discrimination claims not considered. |
| Whether state and city law claims receive independent analysis | New York City Human Rights Law claims require independent analysis. | Court should review under existing Title VII framework. | State/city claims ultimately fail; independent analysis required but unavailing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (causation can be shown indirectly by timing if activity followed closely by action)
- Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (temporal proximity must be very close)
- Gorman-Bakos v. Cornell Coop. Ext. of Schenectady Cty., 252 F.3d 545 (2d Cir. 2001) (timing between protected activity and adverse action can support inference of causation)
- Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (courts consider permissible inferences from temporal proximity)
- Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013) (but-for causation required for retaliation claims)
- Littlejohn v. City of N.Y., 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (demonstrates sufficient proximity for inference when timely but not here)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must plead plausible facts, not merely legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (claims must be plausible on their face)