Ya-Chen Chen v. City University of New York
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18792
2d Cir.2015Background
- Chen began as an assistant professor at CCNY in September 2007 and served as Interim Director of Asian Studies in 2008-2009.
- Chen had a notable incident with a student in Spring 2009 that led to administrative scrutiny of her handling and collegiality concerns.
- Following the incident, Chen sought guidance from CCNY administrators including Lesen, Murphy, and Calichman, who advised boundary-setting strategies and further involvement if needed.
- A May 20, 2009 meeting with Calichman and Murphy criticized Chen’s handling and recommended caution in intervening with students not in her class.
- CCNY ultimately decided not to reappoint Chen as Interim Director and later not to renew her tenure-track appointment for 2010-2011, decisions made before and during the tenure-review process.
- Chen filed an Affirmative Action Complaint in August 2009 alleging discrimination and retaliatory treatment; the district court granted summary judgment for the defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chen's Title VII retaliation claim survives summary judgment | Chen contends retaliation by CUNY for filing the AA complaint. | Defendants argue non-retaliatory reasons based on Chen's conduct and collegiality. | Yes, district court properly granted summary judgment for retaliation claim |
| Whether Chen's Title VII discrimination claim survives summary judgment | Chen asserts discriminatory motives influenced decisions not to reappoint. | Defendants maintain legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons based on conduct and collegiality. | No, no reasonable jury could find discrimination under Title VII |
| Whether Chen's NYCHRL discrimination/retaliation claims survive summary judgment | NYCHRL should be construed more liberally to find discrimination/retaliation. | Defendants' reasons were not pretextual under NYCHRL standards. | No, district court properly granted summary judgment on NYCHRL claims |
| Whether Chen's Title VII retaliation claims and NYCHRL claims should be remanded for trial | Record contains evidence that could support retaliation and discriminatory motives. | Evidence favors non-retaliatory explanations and no pretext. | Not remanded; affirmed summary judgment on those claims |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for retaliation/discrimination analysis)
- Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (U.S. 2013) (but-for causation standard for retaliation)
- Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000) (consistency of proffered nondiscriminatory reasons supports lack of pretext)
- Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2004) (pretext analysis for discrimination claims)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext requires showing the reasons were not the true reasons)
- Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) (discrimination claim framework and mixed motives considerations)
- Bickerstaff v. Vassar Coll., 196 F.3d 435 (2d Cir. 1999) (mosaic evidence approach for discrimination/retaliation analysis)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (NYCHRL claims analyzed separately and liberally)
- Velazco v. Columbus Citizens Found., 778 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2015) (NYCHRL construction and analysis guidance)