Shultz v. Congregation Shearith Israel of New York
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14764
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Alana Shultz was told on July 21, 2015 that her Program Director position was eliminated and that her employment would terminate effective August 14, 2015; she was visibly pregnant and had announced the pregnancy before the meeting.
- At the meeting, she was offered a severance agreement conditioned on waiving pregnancy/gender and FMLA claims; she refused and retained counsel on July 30, 2015.
- On August 5, 2015 the Congregation sent a letter stating it had "reinstated" the position and rescinded the planned termination; Shultz stopped working after August 14 and did not deposit continued paychecks.
- Shultz alleged post-notice mistreatment (disparaging comments, exclusion from communications and duties) and sued for Title VII discrimination and retaliation, FMLA interference, and state-law defamation.
- The district court dismissed all federal claims for failure to state a claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state/city claims; Shultz appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a notice of termination that is later rescinded can be an "adverse employment action" under Title VII | Notice of termination itself is a quintessential adverse action because it ends employment prospectively, causes anxiety, and forces job search/legal costs | No adverse action until termination is implemented; rescission restores status quo so no actionable adverse event occurred | Notice of termination is an adverse employment action even if rescinded later; accrual follows notification (vacated dismissal on this claim) |
| Whether the rescinded notice can constitute interference with FMLA rights | Rescinded termination weeks before expected leave deterred and interfered with exercise of FMLA rights | Because termination never took effect, there was no interference with FMLA leave | FMLA should be construed like Title VII here; notice may constitute interference (district court erred to dismiss) |
| Constructive discharge / hostile work environment based on post-notice conduct | Combination of notice, contemptuous behavior, exclusion, and reinstatement offer made working conditions intolerable | Post-notice incidents were limited, short-lived, and insufficiently severe/pervasive | Allegations insufficient to plead constructive discharge or hostile work environment; dismissal affirmed on these claims |
| Retaliation for retaining counsel/threatening suit | Retaliatory campaign (disparaging statements, exclusion, negative public statement) after Shultz retained counsel | Post-lawsuit/public statements and minor slights are not materially adverse | Alleged post-notice conduct did not meet materially adverse standard for retaliation; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (notice of nonrenewal/denial of tenure starts accrual at notice)
- Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6 (limitations accrues when operative decision is made and notice given)
- Green v. Brennan, 136 S. Ct. 1769 (accrual begins on notice of firing, not last day)
- Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219 (offer of reinstatement can toll backpay liability; claimant must mitigate)
- Pierce v. F.R. Tripler & Co., 955 F.2d 820 (employer may toll backpay by making unconditional offer of substantially equivalent job)