Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority
743 F.3d 11
2d Cir.2012Background
- Rivera, a Puerto Rican, and Taitón, an African American, were Lift Line employees, a Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority subsidiary.
- Folino, the Lift Line senior mechanic, had a personal conflict with Rivera stemming from an affair between Rivera's ex-wife and Folino, intensifying workplace tension.
- Between 2003 and 2007 Folino and others allegedly harassed Rivera, including ethnic slurs and a hostile atmosphere, with additional bullying and threats.
- Rivera and Taitón provided contemporaneous complaints; Rivera's 2007 NYSDHR complaint attributed harassment to an old boys club but did not allege ethnic slurs in that filing.
- Taitón testified co-workers and a supervisor repeatedly used racial slurs against him, including calls of “nigger,” and he filed multiple EEOC charges beginning in 2006.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for RGRTA on both plaintiffs' Title VII, NYSHRL, and related claims, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rivera's hostile environment claim was properly dismissed | Rivera contends evidence shows ethnic slurs and harassment tied to national origin. | RGRTA argues harassment was personal, not based on national origin, and not sufficiently severe or pervasive. | District Court erred; triable issue of fact exists. |
| Whether Taitón's hostile environment claim was properly dismissed | Taitón shows supervisor and co-workers used racial slurs in a threating manner. | RGRTA contends evidence insufficient or not directed at him. | District Court erred; triable issue of fact exists. |
| Whether Rivera's retaliation claim against RGRTA should have been dismissed | Retaliation followed his NYSDHR filing; actions were adverse and linked to protected activity. | Disciplinary actions were within normal policy and not materially adverse. | Affirmed dismissal; no material adverse actions shown. |
| Whether Taitón's retaliation claim against RGRTA should have been dismissed | Supervisor threats and adverse responses after EEOC charges constitute retaliation. | Some actions were not sufficiently adverse or causally linked. | Vacated dismissal; factfinder could find adverse action and causality. |
| Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | State-law claims should remain with federal claims per constitutional and statutory guidelines. | Court could decline supplemental jurisdiction if not necessary. | District Court should retain supplemental jurisdiction; state claims remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard for hostile environment and summary judgment)
- Hayut v. State Univ. of N.Y., 352 F.3d 733 (2d Cir. 2003) (totality of circumstances in hostile environment analysis)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (material adversity standard for retaliation)
- Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001) (circumstantial proof allowed in hostile environment claims)
- Richardson v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Serv., 180 F.3d 426 (2d Cir. 1999) (unambiguous racial epithet in supervisor's presence can create hostile environment)
- Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2005) (issues of credibility and evidence in summary judgment)