Catharine E. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee, Lisa Linder, Defendant.
Docket No. 14-1034-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Decided: Oct. 19, 2015.
Submitted: March 19, 2015.
*The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.
Susan Paulson (Francis F. Caputo, of counsel), for Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: LEVAL, STRAUB, and DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff Catharine E. Davis (“Davis“), proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Matsumoto, J.), granting the motion of Defendant New York City Department of Education (“DOE“) for summary judgment, and denying Plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment. Davis‘s suit sought damages based on a claim of discrimination under the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA“),
I. Facts1
Davis began working for the DOE, then known as the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, as a substitute teacher at P.S. 270 in December 1998. She subsequently became licensed to teach health at I.S. 218 around 2000. In September 2002, she transferred to J.H.S. 302 Rafael Cordero (“J.H.S. 302“), where she taught from 2002 to 2009.
The terms and conditions of Davis‘s employment were governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA“) between the DOE and Davis‘s union, the United Federation of Teachers (“UFT“). Pursuant to the CBA, in the 2008-09 school year J.H.S. 302 participated in DOE‘s Schoolwide Performance Bonus Program whereby the school as a whole would receive a lump sum bonus award if students met certain achievement goals for the school year. The school‘s total bonus pool was calculated by multiplying by $3,000 the number of full-time UFT-represented staff members employed by the school. Pursuant to the CBA, J.H.S. 302 was mandated to establish a compensation committee, comprised of the school‘s principal and other staff members, responsible for determining the methodology for distributing any award the school earned from the bonus program. The CBA implied that all eligible staff should share in the bonus, but gave the committee discretion whether to make equal individual awards, vary the awards by title, or make differential awards. The CBA also noted that while bonuses could not be allocated based on seniority, the committee could make particular determinations for individual staff members who served at the school for less than a full academic year. The CBA also provided for the establishment of an oversight committee, comprised of the Chancellor and President of UFT, which had the power to modify an award if it found that the award decision was arbitrary, capricious or in clear violation of law or the procedures and standards governing the program. A list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) dated October 2008 regarding the bonus program explained the compensation committee‘s discretion over individual awards.
On October 29, 2008, Davis was injured in a car accident. She submitted an application to DOE to take medical leave without pay, and DOE approved her request for the period of December 8, 2008, through January 30, 2009. Although medically cleared to return to work on January 31, 2009, Davis did not return until March 1, 2009, because of grand jury duty. As a result, Davis was absent from teaching for roughly four months from October 29, 2008, until March 1, 2009. Ms. Byrd, whom J.H.S. 302 had placed as a substitute teacher in September 2008 to cover for another teacher out on maternity leave, assumed Davis‘s teaching responsibilities sometime in November 2008 until Davis‘s return in March 2009.
On or about November 1, 2009, staff members at J.H.S. 302 were awarded bonuses based on the school‘s achievement of performance goals for the 2008-09 aca1-
Shortly after receiving her bonus, Davis filed a charge of disability discrimination with DOE‘s Office of Equal Opportunity (“OEO“), alleging that $2,000 of the $3,000 bonus to which she believed she was entitled went to Ms. Byrd and alleging (incorrectly) that all other staff members received a full $3,000 bonus. In June 2010, Davis filed a charge of disability discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC“), which subsequently issued a right to sue letter.
II. Proceedings Below
On August 17, 2010, Davis filed a timely pro se complaint asserting a claim for discrimination under the ADA. She alleged she had received satisfactory performance reviews during her first five years teaching at J.H.S. 302, but had become the victim of professional abuse after Lisa Linder became principal of her school in September 2007. She alleged that the reduction of her bonus to $1,000 was due to discrimination because of her disability caused by injuries she sustained during her October 2008 car accident. DOE justified the reduction in Davis‘s bonus based on her extensive absence, and that Ms. Byrd deserved to share in the bonus because of her work as a substitute. The district court granted DOE‘s motion for summary judgment and denied Davis‘s motion for summary judgment.
The court explained that Davis had failed to make a prima facie case of disability discrimination because the reduction of her bonus from $3,000 to $1,000 did not constitute an adverse employment action under the ADA. See Davis, 2014 WL 917142, at *7. Relying primarily on a Seventh Circuit decision, Hunt v. City of Markham, 219 F.3d 649 (7th Cir.2000), the court reasoned that the reduction of Davis‘s bonus could not be an adverse employment action because under the terms of the CBA the employer had discretion over whether to pay her a bonus and, if so, how large, so that she had no legal entitlement to a $3,000 bonus. Davis, 2014 WL 917142, at *7. The court also ruled that Davis failed to meet her burden of showing discrimination.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Davis argues that the court applied erroneous legal standards and failed to recognize disputed issues of material fact.2 We agree that in one respect the district court applied an invalid standard. Nonetheless, the court‘s further ground fully supported its ruling.
Title I of the ADA prohibits discrimination “against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to ...
Claims alleging discrimination under the ADA are subject to the burden-shifting analysis established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). McBride v. BIC Consumer Products Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92, 96 (2d Cir.2009). Under that framework, once a plaintiff produces minimal evidentiary support for the claim of discriminatory motivation, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. But once the employer has set forth its nondiscriminatory justification, the plaintiff must then produce evidence capable of carrying the burden of persuasion that the employer‘s action was at least in part motivated by discrimination. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); St. Mary‘s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-07, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); Tex. Dep‘t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-56, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981).
To qualify as an adverse employment action, the employer‘s action toward the plaintiff must be “materially adverse” with respect to “the terms and conditions of employment.” Sanders v. N.Y.C. Human Res. Admin., 361 F.3d 749, 755 (2d Cir.2004). It must be “more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities.” Id. (citation omitted). We have no bright-line rule to determine whether a challenged employment action is sufficiently significant to serve as the basis for a claim of discrimination. Richardson v. N.Y. State Dep‘t of Corr. Serv., 180 F.3d 426, 437, 446 (2d Cir.1999), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006).
The district court concluded that because the bonuses were “discretionary,” Davis‘s receipt of a smaller bonus than the other employees received could not qualify as an adverse employment action. Davis, 2014 WL 917142, at *7. In so holding, the district court relied primarily on language from the Seventh Circuit‘s decision in Hunt v. City of Markham, 219 F.3d 649 (7th Cir.2000), which in turn relied on Rabinovitz v. Pena, 89 F.3d 482 (7th Cir.1996). The Seventh Circuit ruled in those cases that withholding a discretionary pay increase could not qualify as an adverse employment action. See Hunt, 219 F.3d at 654 (citing Rabinovitz, 89 F.3d at 488-89).
The Seventh Circuit precedents on which the district court relied are not the law in this circuit.3 The fact that the employer has discretion whether to grant
The district court erred in ruling that denial or reduction of a bonus could not constitute an adverse employment action solely because the employer had discretion whether to pay a bonus. The fact that the employer had the right to allocate a bonus on any ground that does not violate the law does not mean that the employer had the right to allocate it on a ground that did violate the law.
Despite this error in the district court‘s reasoning, we nevertheless affirm the judgment. The district court correctly determined that, even if Davis established an adverse employment action, she failed to present evidence that would support the necessary finding of discriminatory motivation. See Gordon v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111, 117 (2d Cir.2000) (“Title VII is violated when a [prohibited] motive plays a part in adverse employment actions ... whether or not it was the sole cause.” (ellipses in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Fields v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 115 F.3d 116, 120 (2d Cir.1997) (“[A] Title VII plaintiff can prevail by proving that an impermissible factor was a ‘motivating factor,’ without proving that the employer‘s proffered explanation was not some part of the employer‘s motivation.“). The employer explained, and it is uncontested, that Davis was absent for four months, that during her absence Davis did not contribute to the school‘s earning of bonuses for its teachers, that it needed to obtain a substitute teacher during Davis‘s lengthy absence, and that the substitute teacher contributed importantly to the school‘s earning of the bonus. Davis failed to adduce evidence sufficient to show that prohibited discrimination played a role in the DOE‘s decision to divide the $3,000 available as a bonus between Davis and the teacher who substituted for her during her absence.
CONCLUSION4
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.