298 F. Supp. 3d 676
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Salas, a Jewish employee with a pronounced stutter, worked in DOI's Fingerprint Division and frequently observed Hasidic visitors who object to being touched by women.
- In Sept. 2015 Salas objected when coworker Maria Calvi forcibly fingerprinted a Hasidic man; Salas alleges Calvi then sneered at and mocked her for intervening.
- Salas alleges Calvi routinely mocked her stutter (including a December 14, 2015 complaint that Calvi mimicked her in front of coworkers) and that she was mocked and ridiculed at work thereafter.
- DOI issued a written warning/derogatory note to Salas in Nov. 2015; Salas was denied a raise in Feb. 2016. She filed an EEOC charge in April 2016 alleging retaliation, religion, and disability discrimination.
- Procedurally: Salas sued DOI and five DOI individuals under Title VII and the ADA; she proceeded pro se initially and later obtained counsel. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual defendants are liable under Title VII/ADA | Salas sued individuals for discrimination/retaliation | Individuals cannot be sued under Title VII or the ADA | Dismissed with prejudice (individuals not liable) |
| Hostile work environment — religion (Title VII) | Workplace was permeated by religious mockery and biased treatment toward Hasidic visitors and Jews | Allegations are vague/isolated and do not show severe or pervasive religious harassment of Salas | Dismissed without prejudice (insufficient nonconclusory facts) |
| Hostile work environment — disability (ADA) | Calvi mocked Salas’s stutter daily and once mimicked her before coworkers, creating an abusive environment | Allegations lack content, tone, duration specifics | Survives motion to dismiss (specific daily mocking sufficiently plausible) |
| Retaliation — Title VII (for complaints about mistreatment of non‑employees) | Salas claims retaliation for reporting mistreatment of Hasidic visitors | Complaints about discrimination toward non‑employees are not protected activity under Title VII; no temporal causation shown | Dismissed without prejudice (protected activity not adequately pleaded) |
| Retaliation — ADA (for complaining about disability harassment) | Salas complained internally about Calvi’s mocking of her stutter and was denied a raise in Feb. 2016 | Defendants dispute causation and timing | Survives motion to dismiss (complaints and timing render causation plausible) |
| Substantive discrimination (Title VII/ADA) | Adverse actions (note, denial of raise) were motivated by religion/disability | No facts showing decisionmakers acted from discriminatory animus or that comparators were similarly situated | Dismissed without prejudice (insufficient facts to infer discriminatory intent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must be plausible)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to factual deference)
- Stadnick v. Vivint Solar, Inc., 861 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2017) (pleading standard on 12(b)(6))
- Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2010) (individuals are not liable under Title VII)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (retaliation and causation standards)
- Petrosino v. Bell Atl., 385 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2004) (isolated/offhand remarks normally insufficient for hostile work environment)
- Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2004) (workplace hostility analysis and relevance of cumulative conduct)
- Schiano v. Quality Payroll Sys., Inc., 445 F.3d 597 (2d Cir. 2006) (objective/subjective hostile work environment standard)