Petitioner's [Plaintiff] appealed Supreme Court's granting the appointing authority's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's retaliation claim which she had filed pursuant to New York City
The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, explaining that Plaintiff failed to allege a causal connection, based on temporal proximity* between her complaints about a supervisor's alleged discriminatory conduct and four alleged disadvantageous employment actions she claimed had to have suffered in 2017.
Noting that Plaintiff's earlier federal litigation was too remote in time and the instant complaint did not allege any "other facts supporting causation," the Appellate Division held that Plaintiff cannot show a causal connection between complaints she made "in March, May, and June 2017, which were resolved in July 2017" and the appointing authority's September 2017 decision to transfer Plaintiff after two short-term assignments to another field office.
Likewise, opined the Appellate Division citing Sims v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 168 AD3d 622, Plaintiff cannot show a causal connection between her complaints and the three suspensions that Plaintiff served in 2017 arising from conduct pre-dating her complaints as those penalties were a "continuation of a course of conduct that had begun before [she] complained."
* The term temporal proximity in law refers to how close in time different things occurred.
** See Brown v City of
The decision is posted on the Internet at: