Salters v. Hewitt-Young Electric, LLC
6:15-cv-06040
W.D.N.Y.Jun 2, 2017Background
- Robert Salters, an African American journeyman electrician referred by IBEW Local 86, sued Hewitt-Young Electric alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and § 1981 for refusing to hire him and for causing a subcontractor to lay him off.
- Salters worked for Hewitt-Young in 2009 and again in 2013; he was laid off in September 2013 and briefly rehired, then laid off after job completion; defendant contends performance issues and an incident where a supervisor was allegedly injured by Salters.
- In December 2013 Salters was denied a referral by Hewitt-Young; the company says he arrived disheveled and smelling of alcohol, which Salters disputes.
- Hewitt-Young hired other African American electricians for the same project shortly after rejecting Salters; it also asked subcontractor Unified Electric to remove Salters, and Unified laid him off and replaced him with another African American electrician.
- Salters filed an EEOC charge in March 2014 (EEOC "no probable cause"), sued in federal court in January 2015. The court granted Hewitt-Young summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Salters' Argument | Hewitt-Young's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Salters established a prima facie disparate-treatment claim | Hewitt-Young refused to hire and caused subcontractor to fire him because of race | No discriminatory motive; reasons were performance, safety incident, and demeanor | Salters failed to show circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination; prima facie case not met |
| Whether employer's stated reasons were pretext for discrimination | Stated reasons are false; facts create inference of pretext | Reasons are legitimate, non-discriminatory, and supported by evidence | Salters failed to show pretext or that discrimination was the real reason |
| Whether hiring of other African Americans undermines Hewitt-Young's defense | Hiring others same race is consistent with discriminatory pattern | Hiring of other African Americans shows no racial motive; minority hiring goals explained | Court found hiring of other African Americans strongly undermined inference of discrimination |
| Whether Salters stated a retaliation claim | He informed union in Dec 2013 and was repeatedly skipped for jobs; argues continuing retaliation | EEOC charge post-dated adverse actions; no evidence employer knew of any complaint in Dec; no change in conduct after filing | Retaliation claim fails: protected activity occurred after adverse actions; no causal connection or employer knowledge established |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (summary-judgment evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (court may grant summary judgment when no reasonable jury could find for nonmovant)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment standards and necessity for reasonable jury conclusion)
- Patterson v. Cty. of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (Title VII and § 1981 standards overlap)
- Grillo v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 291 F.3d 231 (plaintiff must present credible evidence of racial animus)
- Abdu–Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456 (examples of circumstances giving rise to inference of discrimination)
- Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219 (plaintiff must show employer's reason false and discriminatory intent more likely)