Cases & Developments

Order affirming grants of Summary Judgment in favor of the Georgia Military College. Plaintiff, an African American woman and former administrative assistant in the human resources department of the Georgia Military College (the “College”) sued alleging Title VII discrimination and retaliation after her position was terminated during a reduction in force (“RIF”). Prior to her termination, plaintiff – who was the only African American employee in her department – was employed with the College for five years. Upon return from COVID-19 related remote work in June of 2020, employees were encouraged but not required to mask and social distance on campus; Plaintiff, who has heart disease expressed concern for her health when colleagues declined to do so. She also complained about another employee’s personal social media post urging law enforcement to “[b]ring back the hoses and release the dogs,” which was made on the heels of the death of George Floyd. On or about June 30, 2020, plaintiff was informed that she was one of ten College employees whose positions were eliminated pursuant to a RIF that obliged each department to eliminate at least one position. Plaintiff was the only person RIF’d in her department. All other RIF’d personnel were white. She applied but was not selected for two other positions with the College, one of which was filled by an African American applicant, and the other of which remained unfilled for more than a year. Thereafter, she filed a pro se EEOC charge challenging her termination as age and race-based discrimination. Subsequently, she retained counsel who filed a second charge of discrimination based on alleged disability discrimination and retaliation, and upon receipt of right to sue letters, filed litigation. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s dual grants of summary judgment in favor of the College, reasoning that (1) plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim failed due to her failure to exhaust that claim prior to filing suit, and (2) she failed to adduce sufficient evidence under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework that her termination was either race-based or retaliatory, in light of the College’s evidence that the decision to undertake a RIF due to budgetary shortfalls predated her complaints, and that plaintiff’s position was the easiest to absorb within her department.    

Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff, a tenured professor of History at the City College of New York (CCNY), alleged race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the analogous New York law against CCNY, the City University of New York (CUNY), and three employees. Plaintiff’s claims surround his longstanding effort to become a “Distinguished Professor” at CCNY. The court concluded that Plaintiff’s Title VII hostile work environment claim, and parts of the retaliation claim are precluded. Turning to plaintiff’s Title VII disparate treatment claim, the court concluded that Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege discriminatory motive. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered an adverse employment action when he was denied the Distinguished Professor appointment. The court noted that Plaintiff’s claim that his application “was much stronger” than other professors who were considered for the  appointment was “insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination” and that plaintiff did not allege any factual allegations that he did not receive the appointment because of “his race, color, or national origin.” Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims that he was not allowed to take sabbatical and that he was denied the opportunity to teach a historiography course also failed. Turning to the remaining parts of Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the court found that the claim “fail[ed] because he d[id] not establish a causal connection between any of his protected activity and the denial of his Distinguished Professor appointment.” It also noted that Plaintiff did not show that any person’s intent “was the proximate cause” of the Promotion and Benefits Committee’s decision to deny his appointment to Distinguished Professor.