Vogel v. CA, Inc.
662 F. App'x 72
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Howard Vogel, a white employee, worked at CA, Inc., joining the India Service Provider team in 2009 and reporting alleged race/national origin concerns to HR in Feb 2010.
- Vogel asserted that after his complaint, his manager Steve Perlman treated him hostilely (public insults, exclusion from meetings, reduced responsibilities) and later terminated him in Dec 2010 for poor sales performance (no quota-qualifying sales in 2010).
- Vogel sued alleging race and national-origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and analogous Connecticut law (CFEPA); district court granted summary judgment to CA on federal claims and later on state claims after removal.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed whether Vogel established prima facie claims under McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting for discrimination and retaliation.
- The panel affirmed dismissal of discrimination claims (no evidence giving rise to inference of discriminatory motive) but vacated and remanded the retaliation claims, finding a genuine issue as to materially adverse action and causation for prima facie purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination (race/national origin) — prima facie inference | Vogel argued comments and reassignment of duties evidenced discriminatory intent | CA argued remarks were remote, made by another manager, and duty shifts lacked racial motive; performance issues explained actions | Affirmed for CA — Vogel failed to show circumstances giving rise to inference of discrimination |
| Retaliation — adverse action requirement | Vogel argued hostile treatment after HR complaint (public insults, exclusion, removal from meetings, eventual firing) was materially adverse | CA argued adverse-action standard requires change in terms/conditions and relied on poor performance as nondiscriminatory reason | Vacated/Remanded — court held district erred by treating retaliation adverse-action like discrimination; Vogel’s testimony could support materially adverse treatment in context |
| Retaliation — causation | Vogel argued temporal proximity and onset of hostility immediately after complaint showed causal link | CA emphasized legitimate, nonretaliatory reason (poor performance) and disputed causal connection | Remanded — court found close temporal proximity sufficient at prima facie stage; further McDonnell Douglas analysis left to district court |
| State-law (CFEPA) claims | Vogel pursued same theories under Connecticut law | CA defended on same grounds as federal claims | Parallel disposition — discrimination claims affirmed; retaliation claims vacated and remanded under CFEPA as well |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation)
- Burlington N. & Sant Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation adverse-action standard: "materially adverse" conduct)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (retaliation adverse-action need not affect terms/conditions if it would dissuade reasonable worker)
- Kirkland v. Cablevision Sys., 760 F.3d 223 (summary judgment review; McDonnell Douglas in Second Circuit)
- Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (temporal proximity can establish causation at prima facie stage)
- Tomassi v. Insignia Fin. Grp., Inc., 478 F.3d 111 (remarks by non-decisionmaker are less probative of discriminatory motive)
- Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg’l Transp. Auth., 743 F.3d 11 (contextual assessment of adverse action for retaliation claims)
- Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ., 584 F.3d 487 (role of comparative evidence and transfers in inferring discrimination)