Schwartz v. The New York State Insurance Fund, 1:12-cv-01413

Schwartz, an NYSIF hearing representative since 1999 and formerly a senior examiner, sues NYSIF under Title VII retaliation, alleging actions taken in response to his wife Amara Schwartz’s discrimination complaints.
Amara Schwartz, wife of Jerry Schwartz, filed a workers’ compensation claim in 2005 and an EEOC charge in 2008, leading to a right-to-sue letter in 2009.
Plaintiff claims a pattern of reduced duties from 2005 to 2010, including loss of billing-related responsibilities and being shifted away from key duties in the Claims Department.
On August 18, 2010, Schwartz was reassigned to the Hearing Statewide Services section, allegedly as retaliation for his wife’s complaints, and required to work at a different location with hearings calendar responsibilities.
Schwartz further alleges inadequate training after the 2010 reassignment, arguing that he did not receive the foundation of knowledge other colleagues possessed.
NYSIF moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending timeliness issues, lack of a materially adverse action, and lack of causation between protected activity and adverse actions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of pre-June 3, 2010 claims	Continuing violations extend timely reach to pre-2010 acts.	Untimely discrete acts cannot be timely under continuing violations.	Pre-June 3, 2010 claims plausibly timely under continuing violations.
Material adversity of reassignment and training	Reassignment and training changes were materially adverse.	Reassignment is not a demotion and training harm is not shown.	Reassignment is actionable; training claim lacks material harm.
Pre-February 4, 2008 claims under NYWCL exclusivity	Federal Title VII retaliation protections apply despite NYWCL exclusivity.	NYWCL precludes retaliation claims arising from workers’ compensation context.	Pre-2008 claims dismissed for failure to state a Title VII claim; federal protection remains possible for protected activity.
Causal connection between wife's protected activity and actions	There is a causal link between wife's complaints and Schwartz's adverse actions.	No plausible causal link shown; timing insufficient.	No sufficiently close temporal proximity established; leave to replead.
Pleading of plausible retaliation claim (Iqbal standard)	Pleadings and attached materials show plausible retaliation.	Record insufficient to show plausible retaliation under Twombly/Iqbal.	Pleading may be insufficient; dismissal with leave to amend.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes the prima facie framework for discrimination claims)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (material adversity standard for retaliation claims)
Fincher v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 604 F.3d 712 (2d Cir. 2010) (retaliation framework; proximity and causation considerations)
Kaytor v. Electric Boat Corp., 609 F.3d 537 (2d Cir. 2010) (continuing violations framework in retaliation context)
Dixon v. International Federation of Accountants, 416 F. App’x 107 (2d Cir. 2011) (temporal proximity and retaliation pleading standards)
Rodriguez v. Board of Education of Eastchester Union Free School District, 620 F.2d 362 (2d Cir. 1980) (materially adverse action from significant transfer/change in duties)
Morgan v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (continuing violations framework; ongoing discriminatory practices)
Chin v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012) (continuing violations outer boundaries and discrete acts)