Sandia v. Wal-Mart Stores, East LP
699 F. App'x 64
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Ruben Sandia, proceeding pro se, sued his former employer Wal‑Mart under Title VII for racial and national origin discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Wal‑Mart and denied Sandia leave to file a second amended complaint adding defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims.
- The district court found Sandia relied on conclusory allegations and speculation without admissible evidence to support Title VII claims.
- The court also concluded the proposed defamation claim would be futile because Sandia failed to allege a false, non‑privileged statement, and the IIED claim failed for lack of outrageous conduct.
- Sandia appealed the summary judgment and the denial of leave to amend; the Second Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo and denial of amendment for abuse of discretion.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for substantially the district court’s reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII discrimination (race/national origin) | Sandia asserted discriminatory treatment by Wal‑Mart based on race/national origin | Wal‑Mart argued Sandia offered no evidence to meet prima facie elements or show pretext | Affirmed: Sandia failed to produce admissible evidence; conclusory allegations insufficient for summary judgment denial |
| Retaliation under Title VII | Sandia claimed adverse actions were retaliation for protected activity | Wal‑Mart maintained no causal/protected‑activity link or evidentiary support | Affirmed: no genuine dispute of material fact supporting retaliation claim |
| Hostile work environment | Sandia alleged misconduct created a hostile workplace | Wal‑Mart argued incidents were insufficiently severe or pervasive and lacked evidentiary support | Affirmed: conduct not shown to be severe/pervasive; evidence inadequate |
| Leave to amend to add defamation claim | Sandia sought to add defamation based on Wal‑Mart communications to a prospective employer | Wal‑Mart argued any such communications are privileged and Sandia did not plausibly plead a false, non‑privileged statement | Affirmed denial: amendment would be futile; plaintiff failed to plausibly allege false, unprivileged statement |
| Leave to amend to add IIED claim | Sandia alleged emotional distress caused by Wal‑Mart’s conduct | Wal‑Mart argued conduct was not outrageous as required under New York law | Affirmed denial: alleged conduct not "outrageous in character" and claim implausible |
Key Cases Cited
- Sousa v. Marquez, 702 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2012) (summary judgment standard)
- Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549 (2d Cir. 2005) (conclusory allegations insufficient to withstand summary judgment)
- Holmes v. Grubman, 568 F.3d 329 (2d Cir. 2009) (denial of leave to amend reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2011) (futility as a basis to deny leave to amend)
- Chandok v. Klessig, 632 F.3d 803 (2d Cir. 2011) (elements of defamation under New York law)
- Boyd v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 208 F.3d 406 (2d Cir. 2000) (qualified privilege for communications between former and prospective employers)
- Stuoto v. Fleishman, 164 F.3d 820 (2d Cir. 1999) (IIED requirement of outrageous conduct)
- Howell v. N.Y. Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993) (standards for IIED under New York law)