Appealing summary judgment in favor of the employer in an action involving alleged a racially hostile work environment and retaliation claims

Appealing summary judgment in favor of the employer in an action involving alleged a racially hostile work environment and retaliation claims

Berrie v. Bd. of Educ. of the Port Chester-Rye Union Free Sch. Dist. et al., USCA, Second Circuit, 17-2045-cv

Gregory Tyrone Berrie, the Plaintiff in Action I, alleged that the Port Chester-Rye Union Free School District [Board] had subjected him to a racially hostile work environment and retaliated against him following his filing complaints pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), and against all named defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1981 and 1983.

Sustaining the district court's granting the employer's motion for summary judgment dismissing Berrie's action, the Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that, with respect to the issues presented to it on appeal, it would address them "only as necessary to explain [its] decision to affirm" the lower court's disposition of the matter. Among the issues address by the Circuit Court were the following:

1. Consideration to be given to hearsay statements in the record. Although certain statements are hearsay as presented in the record, the court observed that such evidence could be presented in admissible form as live testimony from the students. Thus, said the court, it "could consider them on summary judgment."

2. Failure to address certain references in the record. The court noted that there were references in the record concerning certain incidents that Berrie did not discuss in his briefing and the Circuit Court concluded that "it appears" they are not part of Berry's claims.

3. Hostile work environment claims. As to Berrie’s hostile work environment claims, the Circuit Court said that district court reasoned that Defendants’ conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment. With respect to the Board, the district court concluded that the Board had met its burden to establish the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense.*

As to Berrie’s retaliation claims, the district court concluded that Berrie had shown no adverse employment action against him that was causally related to Berrie’s complaints of discrimination.

Reviewing the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, the Circuit Court said that it would “resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and will affirm summary judgment only if the moving party shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Further, the Circuit Court, citing Lyons v. Lancer Ins. Co., 681 F.3d 50, said “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-movant’s] position will be insufficient” to defeat summary judgment."

With respect to Barry's "hostile work environment claims, the court explained:

a. “To establish a hostile work environment claim . . . a plaintiff must . . . show that the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment” and such mistreatment must have occurred “because of [the] employee’s protected characteristic, such as race or national origin,” although the protected characteristic need not be “the only motivating factor.”

b. “A hostile environment claim must be evaluated on the basis of the cumulative effect of the abusive conduct” by examining the totality of the circumstances, including: the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with the victim’s job performance.”

c. The hostile and abusive conduct alleged must be severe or pervasive both subjectively to the plaintiff and objectively to a “reasonable person.”

d. In considering the totality of the circumstances, there must be “some circumstantial or other basis for inferring that incidents [race-]neutral on their face were in fact discriminatory."

The Circuit Court found that "several of Berrie’s most substantial allegations are unsupported by the record evidence, or else not attributable to discriminatory animus."

Accordingly, the court held that summary judgment was warranted on Berrie’s hostile work environment claims.

With respect to Barry's retaliation claims, the Circuit Court said it evaluates retaliation claims under the burden-shifting framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792.

4. Unlawful retaliation claims. To establish a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation, “an employee must show that (1) he was engaged in protected activity; (2) the employer was aware of that activity; (3) the employee suffered a materially adverse action; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and that adverse action.”

A materially adverse action is one that “produces an injury or harm” in that it “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination” and "retaliatory actions need not be a “materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment.”

In contrast, the court observed that “trivial harms—i.e., those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience—are not materially adverse.” Further, “[m]aterial adversity is to be determined objectively, based on the reactions of a reasonable employee.”

To establish causation, a plaintiff may rely on evidence “that the protected activity was followed closely by discriminatory treatment, or [use] other circumstantial evidence such as disparate treatment of fellow employees who engaged in similar conduct” and/or “evidence of retaliatory animus directed against the plaintiff by the defendant.” However, said the Circuit Court, "[t]emporal proximity alone is generally insufficient after about three months."

Accordingly, the Circuit Court, Berrie did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and summary judgment was warranted on Berrie’s retaliation claims.

5. Evidentiary ruling by the federal district court. With respect to Barry's objections to certain evidentiary rulings made by the lower court underlying its granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as constituting an "abuse of discretion" the Circuit explained that "[a] district court abuses its discretion when it bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or renders a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.”

Under the controlling local rule, Local Rule 56.1(c), a fact asserted in the moving party’s statement “will be deemed admitted unless controverted . . . by the opposing party.”

As the district court noted, Berrie had the opportunity "to take discovery and his counterstatement failed to impugn the motives and counter the testimony of witnesses whose testimony defeated his claims."

Accordingly, the Circuit Court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deeming admitted facts that Berrie failed to properly dispute.

* This defense takes its name from the two US Supreme Court cases that created it: Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998). Typically Faragher-Ellerth has been relied upon by defendants in action involving claims of hostile work environment sexual harassment but has cited in defending against claims of hostile work environment harassment not alleged to constituted sexual harassment.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ad835c46-7c98-435f-8b11-09d6d90547f6/1/doc/17-2045_SO.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ad835c46-7c98-435f-8b11-09d6d90547f6/1/hilite/

Public employers may prohibit its employees from campaigning for, and holding, elected office subject to its action satisfying the so-called Pickering Balancing Test

Public employers may prohibit its employees from campaigning for, and holding, elected office subject to its action satisfying the so-called Pickering Balancing Test

Matter of Spence v New York State Dept. of Agric. & Mkts., 154 AD3d 1234, Decided October 26, 2017

In the Matter of Wayne Spence, as President of the New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO, et al. v New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets et al., 2018 NY Slip Op 06071, Court of Appeals, Decided on September 18, 2018

Gregory Kulzer and Ronald Brown were employed as Dairy Product Specialists by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets [Department]. Their duties included inspecting and rating milk plants and farms in accordance with state and federal law.

In 2013, Kulzer submitted a request for "approval of outside activities" to the Department to campaign for the elected position of Lewis County Legislator. His request was approved, subject to certain restrictions, and he successfully campaigned for and was sworn in as a Lewis County Legislator in January 2014. Upon expiration of the Department's initial approval, Kulzer submitted a renewed request seeking continued approval to serve as a Lewis County Legislator. In August 2014, the Department disapproved Kulzer's request and subsequently the Commissioner sustained the disapproval on the ground that, among other things, Kulzer's outside activities created the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Brown subsequently submitted a request for approval of outside activities to the Department, seeking approval to campaign for and serve as an Oneida County Legislator. Brown's request was disapproved by the Department, also on the ground that this outside activity would create the appearance of a conflict of interest, and, upon appeal, the Commissioner upheld the disapproval.*

Following these actions the Department revised its Employee Policies Handbook with respect to employees' outside activities providing that "[a]ny employee that holds a position that requires him or her to conduct inspections of regulated parties may not campaign for or hold elected office."*

Wayne Spence, as President of the New York State Public Employees Federation, et al, [Petitioners] initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding challenging the Department's disapproval of the requests submitted by Kulzer and Brown to campaign for and serve as county legislators, contending that the Department's determinations and subsequent amendment of its outside-activities policy violated the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and were otherwise arbitrary, capricious and without lawful authority.

Supreme Court granted the Department's motion to dismiss the Petitioners' Article 78 action and Petitioners appealed the Supreme Court's decision to the Appellate Division contending that the lower court had erred when found that the Department's disapproval of Kulzer's and Brown's requests to campaign and hold elected office and the revision of its outside activities policy did not violate the First Amendment.

The Appellate Division, citing Pickering v Board of Education of Township High School District, 391 US 563, noted that although "it is well settled that public employees do not 'relinquish the First Amendment rights [that] they would otherwise enjoy as citizens' as a result of their public employment," nevertheless upon entering government service, "public employees do accept certain restraints or limitations on their free speech rights" as it is recognized that the State has an interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differ significantly from those it possesses in connection with regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general.**

In the words of the Appellate Division, "[t]he primary issue, therefore, is whether Supreme Court erred when it determined that the Department's interest in reducing potential unethical behavior and preserving the professionalism and integrity of the Department outweighed the interest of Kulzer and Brown to serve dual roles as both government inspectors and candidates for elected office."

Applying the so-called Pickering Balancing Test, courts have made clear that such a balance will tip in the employer's favor so long as "(1) the employer's prediction of the disruption that such speech will cause is reasonable; (2) the potential for disruption outweighs the value of the speech; and (3) the employer took the adverse employment action not in retaliation for the employee's speech, but because of the potential for disruption."

Here the Appellate Division found that Supreme Court had properly determined that the Pickering balance tips in the Department's favor and, therefore, the Department's disapprovals and revised outside activities policy were not unconstitutional. In effect the court decided that the  Department did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it revised its outside activities policy nor when it disapproved Kulzer's and Brown's requests to campaign for and hold elected office, explaining that "so long as the Department's determinations have 'a rational basis, [they] will be sustained, even if a different result would not be unreasonable.'"

The Court of Appeals, Judges Rivera and Wilson, in a separate opinion, dissenting, sustained the Appellate Division ruling holding that "the challenged policy has not been shown to be unconstitutional."

* Upon disapproval of Kulzer's request to continue serving as Lewis County Legislator, the Department informed Kulzer that, absent his resignation from the County Legislature, he would be subject to disciplinary action. Kulzer did not resign from his position in the County Legislature and, as a result, in May 2015, the Department initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. It appears that said disciplinary proceedings have been held in abeyance pending the outcome of the instant appeal. Matter of Spence v New York State Dept. of Agric. & Mkts., 154 AD3d 1234, Decided October 26, 2017; affirmed, Court of Appeal, 2018 NY Slip Op 06071.

** N.B. The federal Hatch Act bars partisan political activities by certain State and municipal employees

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_07506.htm

Determining the availability of arbitration to resolve a dispute between a public employer and an employee organization

Determining the availability of arbitration to resolve a dispute between a public employer and an employee organization
Town of North Hempstead v  Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, 2018 NY Slip Op 06098, Appellate Division, Second Department

An employee of the Town of North Hempstead was served with nine individual disciplinary notices for various instances of alleged "misconduct and insubordination." Each notice individually proposed a penalty of a five-day suspension without pay in the event the employee was found guilty of the charge[s] and specification[s] set out in that particular notice of discipline.

The employee was found guilty of the charge[s] and the specification[s] set out in each one of the nine notices of discipline and filed grievances appealing each of the nine disciplinary decisions and the penalties imposed by the appointing authority. All of the employee's administrative appeals submitted in accordance with the relevant procedural steps set out in the Collective Bargaining Agreement [CBA] between the parties were denied. Ultimately the employee's collective bargaining representative, the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, [CSEA] filed a demand to arbitrate the employee's nine disciplinary grievances appealing the nine disciplinary determinations.

In response to CSEA's demand to submit the nine grievances to arbitration, North Hempstead filed a petition pursuant to CPLR Article 75 seeking a permanent stay of arbitration for each of the nine disciplinary decisions and penalties imposed on the employee.

In opposition to North Hempstead's petition, CSEA contended that because the aggregate penalty of all the disciplinary decisions exceeded five days' suspension, resolution of the disputes were controlled by Section XII of the CBA, which set forth the disciplinary procedure for those disputes carrying a penalty of six days' suspension or more and which provided for arbitration of the dispute.

In rebuttal North Hempstead argued that as no single proposed disciplinary penalty exceed a five day suspension Section X of the CBA controlled and Section X did not provided for the arbitration of disputes where the disciplinary action resulted in a penalty of up to, and including, a five days' suspension without pay.

Supreme Court, concluding that because the penalty imposed on the employee resulted in a total of 45 days of suspension without pay, held that the grievances were arbitrable and denied North Hempstead's petition to permanently stay arbitration. North Hempstead appealed.

Reversing the lower court's ruling, the Appellate Division explained that there is a two-step test used to determine "whether a dispute between a public sector employer and an employee organization is arbitrable." Initially the court must determine if there is any statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the dispute. It the court finds that there is no prohibition against arbitration, the court must examine the parties' collective bargaining agreement to determine if the parties, had in fact, agreed to arbitrate the particular dispute at issue.

Noting that North Hempstead did not contend that arbitration of the grievances at issue was prohibited by law or public policy, the Appellate Division said that in this instance the only issue to address was whether the parties had, in fact, agreed to arbitrate these particular grievances.

In contrast to general labor disputes in the private sector involving arbitration, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Board of Educ. of Valhalla Union Free Sch. Dist. v Valhalla Teachers Assn., 112 AD3d 620, pointed out that the intent of the parties in the public sector to arbitrate alleged violations of provisions set out in a collective bargaining agreement "may not be presumed." Absent "clear, unequivocal agreement to the contrary," the Appellate Division opined that there was a presumption that the parties entering into a collective bargaining agreement in the public sector "did not intend to refer differences which might arise to the arbitration forum."

Contrary to the Union's contention, the Appellate Division found that because the disciplinary notices each carried a penalty of a five-day suspension, "the grievance procedure of Section X of the CBA, which did not permit arbitration, was applicable" notwithstanding the fact that "the aggregate penalty assessed against the employee exceeded five suspension days." In other words, the fact that the aggregate penalty involved exceed "five suspension days" did not place the dispute within the ambit of Section XII of the CBA.*

Further, said the Appellate Division, [1] neither Section X nor Section XII of the CBA provides for any deviation from the respective procedures where an employee may be subject to more than one disciplinary action, and [2] CSEA, by its participation in the administrative grievance procedure, including presenting its appeals to the Labor-Management Committee, "essentially conceded that the dispute fell within the ambit of Section X."

When the grievances "were denied at Step 3," CSEA, in the words of the Appellate Division, "... filed a demand for arbitration, which is not permitted under Section X" of the relevant CBA. As the several grievances at issue were controlled by Section X of the CBA, the Appellate Division held that CSEA "failed to demonstrate that the parties in fact agreed to arbitrate these particular disputes."

Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that Supreme Court should have granted North Hempstead's petition to permanently stay arbitration, reversed the lower court's ruling on the law, with costs, and granted North Hempstead petition to permanently stay arbitration.

* Typically a party in a Section X procedure is able to file a CPLR Article 78 petition challenging a Section X decision and, or, penalty while a party to a Section XII procedure is able to challenge the arbitration award by filing a CPLR Article 75 petition.

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_06098.htm

ADDENDUM

This decision appears to be one of first impression.

With respect to the Appellate Division's observation that CSEA's actions in processing these charges  essentially conceded that the dispute fell under the ambit of Section X of the relevant collective bargaining agreement because it actively participated in the disciplinary appeal procedure, presumably [1] two or more of the nine charges were not served on the employee simultaneously and [2] any motion to consolidate two or more of the nine charges served on the employee was denied.

In contrast, had two or more of the charges been either served simultaneously and, or, consolidated and the penalty imposed for the simultaneously served and, or, consolidated charges exceeded a five day suspension without pay, it could be argued that by imposing such a penalty with respect to such  consolidated and, or, simultaneously served  charges the provisions of Section XII were triggered with respect to such charges.

There is some precedent for incorporating a "Section X" and a Section XII type process in a collective bargaining agreement.

Article 7 of the State's Military Law, Code of Military Justice, provides for processing charges and specification for alleged offenses or misconduct by individuals serving in New York State Militia.**

For example, §130.15 of the Military Law "Commanding officer's non-judicial punishment", provides for "commanding officer's non-judicial punishment" whereby a commanding officer may, in addition to or in lieu of admonition or reprimand, impose certain disciplinary punishments for minor offenses without the intervention of a court-martial. A person punished under authority of §130.15 who deems his or her punishment unjust or disproportionate to the offense may, through the proper channel, appeal to the next superior authority. However, the individual subject to the punishment "may in the meantime be required to undergo the punishment adjudged. The officer who imposes the punishment, his successor in command, and superior authority shall have power to suspend, set aside, or remit any part or amount of the punishment and to restore all rights, privileges and property affected.

In contrast, there are several types of "judicial tribunals" - courts-martial - authorized to consider disciplinary initiated against military personnel, There shall be three kinds of courts-martial in each of the forces of the organized militia, (1) a general courts-martial: (2) a special courts-martial, and (3) a summary courts-martial. Each such courts-martial has designated jurisdictions but §130.21 of the Military Law provides that the jurisdiction of courts-martial not exclusive and provisions of Code of Military Justice conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial shall not be construed as depriving provost courts or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction in respect to offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by such provost courts or other military tribunals.

The jurisdiction and authority of of courts martial are set out in Part 4 of the Code of Military Justice while §§130.59 - 130.72 of Part 9 of the Code sets out post-trial procedure and review of courts-martial.

** The Militia of the State of New York consists of the Organized Militia, the State Reserve List, the State Retired List and the Unorganized Militia. The Organized Militia is composed of the New York Army National Guard; the New York Air National Guard; the Inactive National Guard; the New York Naval Militia; the New York Guard whenever such a state force shall be duly organized, such additional forces as may be created by the governor and the Unorganized Militia.