In an action the Plaintiff, who had been employed by the City University of New York [CCNY] as a peace officer on a CCNY campus, sought to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination on the basis of religion and national origin and for alleged unlawful retaliation.
Supreme Court granted the Employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's granting the Employer's motion. In so doing, the Appellate Division, citing Graham v Long Is. R.R., 230 F3d 34, noted that "To prevail on a summary judgment motion in an action alleging discrimination in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law [NYSHRL]:
1. An employer must demonstrate either a plaintiff's failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or,
2. If the employer offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged actions, the plaintiff must raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the employer's explanations were pretextual.
In this instance, the court, with respect to the "employment discrimination cause of action", observed that the Employer argued the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the fourth element: that the discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. Addressing this "fourth element", the Appellate Division said an employer can demonstrate that the termination did not occur under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination by providing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination, and "demonstrating the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether its reason for termination was merely pretextual."
Citing Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d at page 308, footnote 5, the Appellate Division opined that "[It] matters not whether the [employer's] stated reason for terminating plaintiff was a good reason, a bad reason, or a petty one. What matters is that the [employer's] stated reason for terminating plaintiff was nondiscriminatory".
In this instance the court concluded the Employer "met its prima facie burden by offering legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the [Plaintiff's] termination and by demonstrating the absence of material issues of fact as to whether its explanations were pretextual". In contrast, "Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding pretext for discrimination".
Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that "Supreme Court properly granted the [Employer's] motion for summary judgment dismissing the [Plaintiff's] complaint".
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.