385 F. Supp. 3d 323
S.D. Ill.2019Background
- Cyress Smith, an African‑American NYPD sergeant since 1997, alleges disability (sleep apnea/respiratory issues linked to 9/11 recovery) and race discrimination and retaliation by NYC/NYPD and Inspector John Cosgrove.
- From 2006–2016 Smith worked in the Performance Monitoring Unit (PMU); after Cosgrove became PMU commanding officer (June 2015–Sept 2016) Smith lost training duties, was reassigned to mail and other work, received command discipline (CD) for unauthorized tour changes and misconduct, and accrued a high number of sick days.
- Smith’s performance ratings fell from 4.0 historically to 3.5 (2015) and 2.0 (2016); evaluations referenced poor judgment, disruptive conduct, and attendance.
- Smith filed internal NYPD EEO and EEOC complaints alleging race and disability discrimination in 2016; he later sued under Title VII, ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment to defendants on all federal and state claims, except it denied summary judgment only as to a narrow NYCHRL disability‑discrimination theory tied to evaluations, then declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed that NYCHRL claim without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions (race/disability claims) | Transfers, poor evaluations, CDs, reassignment to mail/desk duty, LODI denial, denied promotion/overtime were materially adverse | Many acts were minor, lacked tangible consequences, or were not career‑ setbacks; some were disciplinary responses to misconduct/attendance | Court: None of the challenged acts (except contested evaluation effect under NYCHRL) constituted adverse employment actions for federal/NYSHRL claims; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether Plaintiff raised an inference of discriminatory intent (race/disability) | Pointed to disparate treatment of white comparators and remarks by supervisors | Comparators not shown to be similarly situated; remarks race‑neutral or lacking evidentiary support | Court: No reasonable inference of race or disability animus for the alleged acts (except limited evidence linking evaluations to attendance/disability) |
| Whether retaliation occurred after protected EEO/EEOC activity | Smith contends temporal proximity and subsequent discipline/transfers show retaliation | Decisionmakers lacked knowledge of the EEO charge; legitimate non‑retaliatory reasons (discipline, attendance) exist | Court: No causal showing of retaliation; summary judgment for defendants |
| Failure to accommodate (ADA) — exhaustion | Smith contends he sought reassignment from desk officer for health reasons | Defendants argue Smith did not include a failure‑to‑accommodate claim in his EEOC charge and claim is not reasonably related to the charge | Court: Smith failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the desk‑officer accommodation claim; summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard)
- Galabya v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 202 F.3d 636 (2d Cir. 2000) (when transfers/assignments amount to adverse employment actions)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (evidence that raises inference of discriminatory intent)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (NYCHRL distinct, requires showing discriminatory motive but broader than federal standard)
- Ya‑Chen Chen v. City Univ. of New York, 805 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2015) (NYCHRL causation standard parallels but can be broader than federal law)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (elements and causation for retaliation claims)
- Weeks v. N.Y. State (Div. of Parole), 273 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2001) (definition of adverse employment action)