Case Information
*1 ‐ 3634 ‐ cv et al. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY IS PERMITTED AND GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At term United States Appeals Second Circuit, held Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, New York, th day October, two thousand seventeen.
PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,
Circuit Judges
JED S. RAKOFF, Judge .* ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ LISA KENNEDY,
Plaintiff ‐ Appellant ‐ cv FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, ALVIN BEAL, AS AIDER ABETTOR,
Defendants Appellees. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ * Jed S. Rakoff, Southern York, sitting designation.
FOR APPELLANT: L AWRENCE M. O RDWAY , J R ., Bousquet Holstein PLLC, Syracuse, NY. APPELLEES: W HITNEY K. F OGERTY , Federal Express Corporation, Memphis, TN. se Tigard, OR. Appeal from judgment District Court Northern York (Mae A. D’Agostino, ). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, DECREED judgment is part,
Lisa appeals from judgment (D’Agostino, J.) granting summary judgment Federal Corporation (“FedEx”). appeal, argues entitled summary judgment doctrine. Faragher Boca Raton U.S. (1998); Burlington Indus., Inc. Ellerth, U.S. 764–65 (1998). also argues disputes preclude summary Title VII discrimination, retaliation. assume parties’ familiarity with facts *3 prior proceedings, to which refer only necessary to explain our to in vacate in part.
Viewing in light most favorable to drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., F.3d n.12 (2d Cir. 2016), conclude that she raised a dispute of whether her supervisor, engaged quid pro quo harassment making threats or promises “linked tangible job benefits acceptance or rejection of sexual advances,” Karibian Columbia Univ., F.3d (2d Cir. 1994). testified (1) Beal told her “[y]ou take care me, I’ll take care you” context Beal’s rape, (2) Beal ordered her come into office a Sunday raped when were alone, after he had already raped her previous month under similar circumstances. record, a reasonable jury could submitted threat discipline or promise “continued employment.” Jin Metro. Life Ins. Co., F.3d (2d Cir. Such quid quo if proven at trial, would constitute tangible employment action deprive affirmative Faragher/Ellerth. Id. 92.
*4 Because FedEx established entitlement as matter law, and concedes for purposes appeal conduct created hostile work environment, remand further proceedings Kennedy’s sex discrimination. With respect Kennedy’s retaliation claim, substantially reasons September order Court. 5:13 CV WL (N.D.N.Y. Sept. have considered Kennedy’s remaining arguments are without merit. For foregoing reasons, retaliation claim discrimination claims, COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk