A federal district court for the Northern District of New York summarily dismissed Petitioner's claims for race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), as well as his claims for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and the NYSHRL.
Petitioner had been an employee of the Albany Fire Department [AFD] since 1993, serving as a firefighter in a number of capacities until his promotion captain in 2010 when he was offered a provisional promotion to battalion chief, the third highest-ranking position at the AFD. The promotion was to take effect after a swearing-in ceremony.
Shortly before the ceremony, Petitioner was drinking, while off-duty, and became so intoxicated that first responders found him “incoherent". AFD subsequently rescinded the promotion offer it had made to Petitioner. Petitioner challenged AFD's action but a federal district court’s summary judgment dismissed his complaint.
Petitioner appealed the district court's ruling, contending that he sufficiently established his claims for race discrimination. The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, rejected Petitioner's appeal and, affirming the district court's decision, said:
1. "Here, the record supports the district court’s determination that the AFD was entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s race discrimination claims";
2. "While Plaintiff purports to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his disability-related claims under the ADA and the NYSHRL, his briefing on appeal does not address either of those claims. Therefore, [Plaintiff] has abandoned any challenge to the dismissal of these claims";
3. Based on its independent review of the record, the Circuit Court concluded that "[Plaintiff] established a prima facie case of race discrimination ... as an African-American employee, is a member of a protected class; met his 'minimal' burden of presenting evidence that he 'possesses the basic skills necessary for performance of the' battalion chief position";
4. "[The] rescission of [Plaintiff's] promotion offer constitutes an adverse employment action ... [i]n addition to terminations of employment and demotions, failure to promote ... may also qualify as [an] adverse action";
5. Plaintiff "produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that his base pay and benefits would have been greater as battalion chief than as captain"; and
6. Plaintiff's allegation that he was “replace[d] ... with an individual outside [his] protected class” is sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination at the initial prima facie stage."
Turning to the arguments advanced by ADF in its defense, the Circuit Court opined that ADF "has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory rationale for rescinding [Plaintiff's] promotion offer. Before he was slated to become battalion chief, [Plaintiff] consumed at least seven pints of beer ... and proceeded to 'expos[e] himself' outside of a [public establishment], ... prompting first responders to call an ambulance for 'a very old male who [was] highly intoxicated and ... pooped on himself,' ... and who was 'incoherent with his pants down around his ankles'....”
Following that incident, said the court, "AFD determined that [Plaintiff’s] promotion to battalion chief would undermine the AFD’s internal morale and its public perception, as well as [Plaintiff’s] effectiveness as a leader."
In these circumstances, opined the Circuit Court of Appeals, "the AFD has stated a sufficient, non-discriminatory rationale for the adverse employment action" and "[Plaintiff] on the other hand, has failed to produce sufficient evidence showing either that the AFD’s proffered reason was false, or more generally, that discrimination was the real reason for the rescission."
Noting that Plaintiff contended that the AFD’s promotion of "a Caucasian employee, constitutes disparate treatment," the Circuit Court said it agreed with the district court that Plaintiff and his Caucasian employee were not similarly situated." The Caucasian employee "was promoted to captain in April 2020, years after he was arrested and charged with an aggravated DWI in 2017." Plaintiff, in contrast, "engaged in misconduct days before he was slated to become battalion chief. Only in [Plaintiff's] case, then, was the AFD faced with the prospect of promoting an employee who had just publicly humiliated himself and the AFD. Moreover, [Plaintiff] was slated for promotion to a more senior position (battalion chief), which involved being a shift commander in charge of several field companies and members of the AFD."
Thus, opined the Circuit Court, "[Plaintiff] has not established that the circumstances of [the Caucasian employee's] promotion were so similar so as to give 'at least minimal support to [Plaintiff’s] claims that the [rescission] may have been based on race' ... discrimination.”
Finally, the Circuit Court said Plaintiff fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was treated less favorably than [the Caucasian employee] and even assuming they were similarly situated, [Plaintiff] "points only to the fact that the person ultimately selected to be battalion chief ... scored second on the civil service exam after [Plaintiff]".
In the words of the Circuit Court of Appeals, "No reasonable jury could discern from this record, taken as a whole, that the AFD rescinded [Plaintiff's] promotion offer due to his race. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed [Plaintiff's] race discrimination claims."
Click HERE to access the Circuit Court of Appeals decision posted on the Internet.