Risco v. McHugh, 868 F. Supp. 2d 75

Risco, a dark-skinned Hispanic woman, began as a probationary Guidance Counselor Intern at West Point on September 28, 2008 and was terminated July 25, 2009.
Termination was based on alleged inappropriate behavior; Byrd (supervisor) and Bilello (HR) were involved; IMCOM initially decided to terminate in late April/early May 2009 with a May 1 memo recommending termination.
Risco’s conduct included office-relationship comments, use of pet names for coworkers, emails about workplace professionalism, unusual voicemails, a March 2009 resignation/recission, and an April 2009 accusation Byrd monitored her email.
In March 2009, Risco contacted the Army EEO office; she later filed an informal discrimination complaint on May 15, 2009 alleging race discrimination; the formal EEO complaint followed and the Army eventually terminated her.
The Army's Final Agency Decision (May 28, 2010) found no discrimination or retaliation; Risco pursued a federal action for Title VII discrimination, retaliation, and hostile environment, which the court granted on summary judgment.
Risco’s disability-related theories are sua sponte rejected; the court held Title VII does not prohibit disability discrimination and there is no cognizable Rehabilitation Act claim based on the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discrimination: prima facie race/color discrimination	Risco alleges race/color discrimination in termination and related conduct.	No prima facie case; no suitable comparators; no evidence of discriminatory motive.	No prima facie case; summary judgment for defendant on discrimination.
Discrimination: direct evidence of racial animus	Supervisor conduct and statements show bias against race/color.	No direct evidence of bias; conduct facially neutral and not shown to be racially motivated.	No direct evidence of discriminatory intent; discrimination claims fail.
Retaliation: prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas	Protected EEO activity (informal/formal complaints) caused adverse actions.	No causally connected protected activity; actions began before or without linkage to protected activity.	No prima facie retaliation; summary judgment for defendant on retaliation.
Hostile work environment: race/color based	Workplace conduct created a racially hostile environment.	Incidents were facially neutral and not severe or pervasive enough; no link to race.	Hostile environment claim failed; not severe or pervasive and not proven to be race-based.
Disability claims under Title VII/RHA/ADA	Disability/perceived disability discrimination asserted under Title VII and related acts.	Title VII does not cover disability; no cognizable RHA/ADA claim shown in the record.	Disability claims are not cognizable under Title VII; no surviving disability discrimination claim.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes three-step burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Texas Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (production burden to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (employer need not persuade; burden-shifting with potential credibility assessment at trial)
Ruiz v. County of Rockland, 609 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2010) (prima facie framework and disparate treatment analysis)
Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2000) (similarly situated requirement for disparate treatment)
Lopez v. S.B. Thomas, Inc., 831 F.2d 1184 (2d Cir. 1987) (hostile environment analysis requires severe or pervasive conduct)