Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani New York Partner David J. Grech and Senior Counsel Brittany L. Primavera were successful in achieving full summary judgment on all claims in a gender discrimination and retaliation case filed by two plaintiffs in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, with all claims brought against their client being dismissed with prejudice.
The firm’s client, a world-leading expert network, faced claims of employment discrimination, on the basis of gender, and retaliation. The first plaintiff, an employee, claimed that defendant treated women in the workplace disparately and that it ultimately terminated her employment because she made complaints about that treatment. The second plaintiff, an applicant for employment, claimed that she was denied an employment opportunity with defendant because of her gender.
The Court held that the first plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of either discrimination or retaliation under Title VII or the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). Grech and Primavera successfully argued that the circumstances of plaintiff’s termination did not give rise to an inference of discrimination, a necessary element of a discrimination claim under Title VII and the NYSHRL. The Court was persuaded by defendant’s position that plaintiff was terminated for non-discriminatory reasons, which included plaintiff’s insubordination to defendant’s Chief Executive Officer and complaints from fellow employees about plaintiff’s behavior. In addition, the team’s use of the “same actor inference” further persuaded the Court not to impute discriminatory intent to the defendant where the individual that hired plaintiff was the same individual that made the decision to terminate her employment. Finally, the Court agreed with defendant’s argument that the inference of gender discrimination was undercut by the fact that a female employee preceded plaintiff in her position with defendant.
Grech and Primavera persuaded the Court to dismiss the second plaintiff’s Title VII and the NYSHRL discrimination claims as well. They successfully argued that plaintiff was not “qualified for the position,” another necessary element of a discrimination claim under Title VII and the NYSHRL. Through discovery, Grech and Primavera were able to get plaintiff to admit both that the preferred candidate for the position would have certain experience and that she lacked that experience. The Court held that, even if plaintiff were qualified, no reasonable juror would conclude that defendant’s decision not to hire plaintiff was motivated by gender; defendant ultimately hired a woman, who thus belonged to the same protected class as plaintiff, severely weakening plaintiff’s contention that her rejection was discriminatory. Finally, Grech and Primavera demonstrated that plaintiff herself did not reasonably believe that gender played a role in her hiring process, only asserting such claims after speaking with the first plaintiff after her termination.
These arguments ultimately led to the Court’s granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims with prejudice. The dismissal is a substantial victory for the client, and an impressive achievement for Grech and Primavera as summary judgment is exceedingly rare in employment discrimination matters. Grech and Primavera are members of the firm’s employment practice group in its New York City office and handled this case from inception, with the assistance of associate Dahn Levine and under the supervision of partner Mercedes Colwin.