Tassy v. Buttigieg
51 F.4th 521
2d Cir.2022Background
- Jean‑Claude Tassy, a Black man of Haitian origin, became an FAA ASI‑in‑training at the Farmingdale FSDO in 2015 and stalled at Level 3 training (30–35% complete) over multiple years.
- Supervisors counseled Tassy to coordinate for on‑the‑job training; FAA documented performance concerns and a 2018 memorandum noted refusals to go into the field and inadequate progress.
- Tassy alleged he was denied training and subjected to hostile office conduct because of race, color, and national origin (examples: being ignored in mornings, curt/abusive interactions, a colleague’s disparaging remark about his Haitian painting).
- Tassy contacted an EEO counselor on August 18, 2018 and filed an EEOC complaint January 8, 2019; the agency found no discrimination and held several claims time‑barred for lack of incidents within the 45‑day window.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary of Transportation, ruling the failure‑to‑train claim time‑barred and the hostile‑work‑environment claim unsupported by evidence of discrimination; the Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of failure‑to‑train / applicability of the continuing‑violation doctrine | Tassy contends FAA’s refusal to train was an ongoing pattern (continuing violation), so earlier incidents are actionable | Discrete acts trigger the 45‑day administrative contact rule; no discrete training denial occurred within 45 days of Aug 18, 2018; continuing‑violation doesn't revive discrete acts | The court held the failure‑to‑train claim is a discrete‑act theory; Tassy identified no discrete act within the 45‑day window; continuing‑violation inapplicable → claim time‑barred |
| Hostile work environment — motive and severity/pervasiveness | Tassy argues the cumulative failures to train plus office incidents created a hostile environment motivated by race, color, or national origin | Employer says incidents were not overtly racial, not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and plaintiff lacks evidence they were motivated by protected characteristics | Court held Tassy failed to show the harassment was "because of" his race/color/national origin; affirmed dismissal on that ground (did not reach severity/pervasiveness) |
| Use of an alleged discriminatory policy/practice to extend limitations | Tassy argues an ongoing discriminatory policy to deny training brings claims within the limitations period | Defendant relies on Morgan/Chin: policy allegations do not save time‑barred discrete acts | Court agreed discrete acts remain individually time‑barred even if said to stem from a general policy; policy claim did not rescue the untimely discrete‑act claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Fitzgerald v. Henderson, 251 F.3d 345 (2d Cir. 2001) (45‑day EEO‑counselor contact requirement operates as a statute of limitations for federal employees)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete discriminatory acts are individually actionable but time‑barred if not timely charged; continuing‑violation doctrine limited)
- Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012) (an employer’s alleged ongoing policy does not extend the limitations period for discrete acts)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (each discrete act ‘‘occurs’’ on the day it happened for limitations purposes)
- Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2002) (elements and proof standards for hostile work environment claims)
- Pucino v. Verizon Wireless Commun., Inc., 618 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary judgment standard; circumstantial evidence may support discriminatory motive in hostile‑environment claims)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (hostile work environment: interference with work performance and severe/pervasive analysis)