Walsh v. New York City Housing Authority
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12496
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Rita Walsh (female, tile setter) interviewed with five male candidates for five NYCHA bricklayer openings; four interviewers (including a technical expert, Lollo) made a collective hiring decision; no current female bricklayers at NYCHA.
- Walsh told interviewers she had little to no brick/block experience; her resume showed extensive tile work. Interviewers offered jobs to five men and unanimously declined Walsh, citing lack of brick/block experience.
- HR representative Osagie Akugbe organized interviews, observed, and informed candidates of results; Walsh says Akugbe told her she was not hired because the interviewers wanted "somebody stronger"; NYCHA and Akugbe deny that statement.
- Walsh sued under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. District court granted summary judgment to NYCHA on Title VII and NYSHRL claims and declined to retain the NYCHRL claim; Walsh appealed.
- The Second Circuit majority vacated summary judgment, holding that when Walsh’s evidence (absence of female bricklayers, relative qualifications for tile work, limited technical questioning, Akugbe’s remark) is viewed as a whole it could permit a reasonable jury to infer sex-based discrimination; the case was remanded. Judge Livingston dissented, finding Walsh’s admitted lack of bricklaying experience fatal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walsh presented sufficient evidence at step three of McDonnell Douglas to show NYCHA’s nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual | Walsh: aggregate evidence (no female bricklayers, superior tile experience vs at least one hire, minimal technical questioning, Akugbe’s comment) creates triable issue of sex-based motive | NYCHA: legitimate nondiscriminatory reason — Walsh admitted lack of brick/block experience; evidence does not show pretext or discriminatory motive | Majority: Vacated summary judgment; evidence viewed cumulatively could let a reasonable jury infer discrimination. Dissent: would affirm summary judgment for NYCHA. |
| Admissibility and weight of Akugbe’s alleged remark | Walsh: statement was made by an NYCHA employee within scope of agency (party-opponent), admissible and probative of sex stereotyping | NYCHA: (did not challenge admissibility below but disputes content); district court treated it as inadmissible hearsay and unpersuasive | Majority: statement falls under party-opponent rule and is not hearsay; credibility and weight are for the jury. |
| Relevance of absence of female bricklayers at NYCHA | Walsh: "inexorable zero" is probative, even without detailed statistics, as one component of the evidentiary mosaic | NYCHA: absence alone is insufficient in an individual disparate-treatment case without applicant-level context | Majority: absence may be considered as part of the whole; lack of contextual data affects weight, not admissibility or relevance. |
| Proper standard for reviewing discrimination summary judgment | Walsh: courts must view all evidence cumulatively and resolve inferences for nonmovant | NYCHA: district court applied proper summary-judgment principles to find no triable issue | Held: Court reiterates de novo review and that summary judgment is inappropriate where reasonable jurors could infer discriminatory motive from the assembled evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (established burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- Aikens v. U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors, 460 U.S. 711 (prima facie is a flexible evidentiary framework; courts may proceed to full record)
- Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93 (evidence must be viewed as a whole; discrepancies in credentials can have probative value)
- Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (plaintiff must show defendant’s reason is pretext and discrimination was a motivating factor)
- Danzer v. Norden Sys., Inc., 151 F.3d 50 (self-serving affidavits can defeat summary judgment where credibility is central)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (court may infer discrimination where employer’s explanation is discredited)
- Aulicino v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Homeless Servs., 580 F.3d 73 (standard of review for summary judgment in employment discrimination cases)