Ju d g e R o se m a ry S . P o o ler , o rig in a lly a ss ig n e d to th is p a n e l, did n o t p a rt ic ip a te in * th e c o n sid e ra tio n o f th is a p p e a l. T h e re m a in in g tw o m e m b e rs o f th e p a n e l, w h o a re in agr eement , have de t erm i ned this m at t er i n acco rdance w i th S econ d C i rcui tI nt ernal O per at i ng P roc ed u re E (b). 08 - 53 67 - cv R agusa v. M al ver ne U ni on Free Sch oo l D i st r i ct

UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HAVE P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F E CT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RU LE OF AP PE LLATE PROCED URE 3 2 . 1 AND TH I S COU RT’ S LOCA L RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR AN EL E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A t a s tate d ter m o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 21 day of J une, tw o thous and t en. st P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

PETE R W . HA LL,

C i r cui tJudges . *

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- BI L J ANA R AGUS A,

P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 08- 5367- cv M ALV ERN E UN I ON FREE S CH OO L DI STRI CT, M ALVERNE UNI ON FRE E S CHOOL DI S TRI CT BO AR D OF E DU, M AR Y E L L E N F RE E L E Y, SU PER I N TEN D EN T O F SCH O O LS,

D ef endant s -Appel l ees .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : L O U I S D . ST O B E R , J R . , G arden C i ty, N ew Y ork. A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L E E S : M E L IS S A L . H O L T Z E R (B ri a n S . S o k o lo ff , on the br i ef ) , Sokol of

f St ern L L P, W es tbury, N ew Y ork.R agus a al s o cont ends thatthe di s tr i ctc our te rr ed by gr ant i ng de f endant s ’ mot i on f

or 1 s um m ary j udgm ent “w i thoutal l di s covery havi ng been c om pl et ed. ” Pl . ’ s B r . at10. R evi ew i ng the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s conductof di s covery f

orabus e of

di s cr et i on, s ee I n r e A gent O range P rod. L i ab . L i t i g. , 51 7 F . 3d 76 , 10 2 (2d C i r. 20 08 ), w e detectno ne. A s R agu sa conce des , the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm entm ore than s even mont hs af t er deci di ng herm ot i on t o com pel on February 19, 2008. See R agus a v. M al verne U ni on Fr ee Sch. D i s t . , 549 F. Supp. 2d 2 88 , 2 89 (E . D . N . Y . 2008) . Fur ther , R agus a neve rcompl ai ned t o the di s tr i ctcourtt hatf i l i ng heroppos i t i on t o s um m ary j udgm entbef or e r ece i vi ng a d e c isio n o n a m o tio n to c o m p e l p re v e n ted h e r fro m p re se n tin g an y ev id e n c e o r a rg u m e n t in s uppor tof

herA D A c l ai m . I ndeed, a f t erthe gr antof

s um m ary j udgm ent , R agus a r el i ed on new evi dence di s cl os ed pur s uantt o the gr antof herm ot i on t o compel i n m ovi ng f or r econs i der at i on of

hergenderdi s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m , butm ade no s uch ar gum entw i th r es pect 2 A p p ea l f rom the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfor the E astern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (D e n is R . H u rl e y , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY ORDE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D thatthe j udgm ente nt er ed on O ct ober 3, 20 08, i s A FFIRM E D i n partand V A C A T E D i n p art , and the case is R E M A N D E D forfurther proceedings. B i l j ana Ragusa , f

orm er l y a m athemat i cs t eac heri n the M al verne U ni on Fr ee School D i s tr i ct , appea l s f

r om a gr antof

s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof t he sc hool di s tr i ct , i t s boar d, and i t s f orm ers up e r i nt e nd e nt( c ol l e c t i ve l y, “ de f e nd a nt s ” ) on he rc l a i ms of di s cr i m i nat i on and r et al i at i on on the bas i s of gende r , age, and di s abi l i ty. See R agus a v. M al verne U ni on Fr ee S ch . D ist . , 5 8 2 F . S u p p . 2 d 32 6 (E . D . N . Y . 20 0 8 ). S p ec if icall y , R ag u sa ch all en g es tha t part of the s um m ary j udgm entaw ar d di s m i s s i ng hercl ai m s underthe A m er i cans w i th D i s abi l i t i es A ct( “A D A ”) , 42 U . S. C . § 12101 e ts eq. , ba s ed on the di s tr i ctc our t ’ s det erm i nat i on thats he f ai l ed t o adduce s uf

f i ci entevi dence t o perm i ta r at i onal f act f i ndert o concl ud e that( 1) s he w as an i ndi vi dual w i th a di s abi l i ty w i thi n the meani ng of the A D A , ( 2) de f

endant s s ubj ect ed hert o a hos t i l e w ork envi r onm entbase d on di s abi l i ty, or ( 3) def endant s r et al i at ed aga i ns ther f orengagi ng i n A D A - pr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty. W e r evi ew an aw ar d of s um m ary j udgm entde 1t o di s abi l i ty. See R agus a v. M al verne U ni on Fr ee Sch. D i s t . , 652 F. Supp. 2d 275, 278- 79

(E. D . N . Y . 20 09 ); see al so S o usa v. R oq ue, 57 8 F . 3d 16 4, 16 9 n . 6 (2d C i r. 20 09 ) ( “T hese claim s w ere n o t r aised b efo re the D istri ct C o u rt , an d w e d o n o t add ress the m h ere . ”). Al th o u g h Con g r e s s a me n d e d th e AD A i n 2 0 0 8 t o e x p a n d i t s c o v e r a g e , s e e Pu b . L. 2 110- 325, 112 St at . 3553 ( 2008) , w e her e appl y the ver s i on of the s t atut e i n ef

f ectdur i ng the t i m e per i od ati s s ue, w hi ch ended w i t h R agusa ’ s t erm i nat i on on J une 30, 2005, s ee i d. at 3 5 5 9 (pro v iding that A D A am e n d m en ts “sh all b ec o m e e ffecti v e o n Jan u ary 1 , 2 0 0 9 ”); Fernandez - V ar gas v. G onzal es , 548 U . S. 30, 37 ( 2006) ( not i ng “rul e of gener al appl i cat i on” thats t atut e “s hal l notbe gi ven r etr oact i ve eff ectunl es s s uch cons truct i on i s r equi r ed by e x p licit l a n g u a g e o r b y n e c e ss a ry im p lica tio n ” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); B e c e rril v. Pi m a C ounty A s s es s or ’ s O f f i ce, 587 F. 3d 1162, 1164 ( 9th C i r . 2009) ( hol di ng that2008 A D A a m e n d m e n ts d id n o t o p e ra te re tr o a c tiv e ly ); a c c o rd T h o rn to n v . U n it e d P a rc e l S e rv ., I nc. , 587 F. 3d 27, 34 n. 3 ( 1s tC i r . 2009) ; F redr i cksen v. U ni t ed Par cel Serv. C o. , 581 F. 3d 5 1 6 , 5 2 1 n . 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ; Ly t e s v . D. C. W a t e r& Se we rAu th . , 5 7 2 F . 3 d 9 3 6 , 9 4 1 ( D. C. C ir . 2 0 0 9 ); E E O C v . A g ro D istri b u ti o n , L L C , 5 5 5 F . 3 d 4 6 2 , 4 6 9 n . 8 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). 3 novo, r es ol vi ng al l ambi gui t i es and dr aw i ng a l l pe rm i s s i bl e f actual i nf er ence s i n f

avorof the n o n -m o v in g p a rty . S e e B u rg v . G o ss e lin , 5 9 1 F .3 d 9 5 , 9 7 (2 d C ir. 2 0 1 0 ). In a p p ly in g th is s t andar d, w e as s um e f

ami l i ar i ty w i th the f

act s and pr ocedur al r ecord, w hi ch w e r ef er ence onl y as nece s s ary t o expl ai n ourdeci s i on. 1 . D isa b ili ty U pon de novo r evi ew , w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctc ourtthatRagusa’s dis cr i m i nat i on cl ai m f ai l ed bec aus e of

i ns uf f i ci entevi dence thats he i s a “qua l i f i ed i ndi vi du al ” w i th a “dis abil i ty” w i thin the m eaning o f the A D A . S ee 42 U . S . C . § 1 21 12 (a) (19 91 ). R agu sa 2 asse rt s that surgery t o rem ov e a beni gn brai n tum or l efther i m pair ed i n the “m aj or l if e act i vi t i es ” of

s eei ng, hear i ng, s peaki ng, and w al king. See 29 C . F. R . § 1630. 2( i ) . T he evi dence , how ever , w as i ns uf f i ci entt o s upporta f

i ndi ng of “ s ubs t ant i al ” l i m i t at i on. See 42 U . S . C . § 1 2 1 0 2 (1); C o lw ell v . S u ffolk C o u n ty P o li ce D ep ’t , 1 5 8 F . 3 d 6 3 5 , 6 4 3 -44 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); 2 9 C . F . R . § 1 6 3 0 . 2 (j ).4

T he record con t ai ns no m edical evidence otherthan a d octor ’s no t e cl eari ng R agu sa t o r eturn t o w ork f

ol l ow i ng hers ur gery. See H ei l w ei l v. M ou nt Si nai H os p. , 32 F. 3d 718, 723 (2d C i r. 1994) ( concl udi ng thatpl ai nt i f f f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h di s abi l i ty w her e, i nt eral i a, sh e o ffe re d “ [n ]o m e d ica l pr o o f” ). N o r d o e s R a g u sa ’s o w n tes tim o n y e sta b lish th e re q u isite s ubs t ant i al l i m i t at i on. W hi l e R agus a expl ai ned thatt he s ur gery caus ed hert o l os e the hea r i ng in h e r left e a r, sh e als o sta ted tha t a “ b o n e an c h o re d h e a rin g aid ” co m p e n sa ted fo r th is d e fic it. See Sut t on v. U ni t ed A i rLi nes , I nc. , 527 U . S. 471, 482 ( 1999) ( perm i t t i ng cons i der at i on of co rrecti v e m ea su res in d eterm ining w h ethe r i m p airm en t sub stan ti all y li m it s m ajor li fe act i vi ty) , s up e r s e de d by 4 2 U . S. C. § 1 21 02 ( 4) ( E) ( i ) ( 20 08 ) . W i th r e s pe c tt o vi s i on , t he r ecor d cont ai ns no evi dence as t o the s ever i ty of R agus a’ s i m pai rm ent . R agus a t es t i f i ed that h er ina b il ity to bli n k he r l eft ey e ca u sed he r t o ex p erien ce p ainfu l i n fec ti o n s an d to req u ir e vi s i on- bl urr i ng eye dr ops s ever al t i m es an hour , buts he ac know l edged thati n 2004 or2005, s he bega n us i ng a medi cat i on thatel i m i nat ed the nee d f oreye dr ops . Si m i l ar l y, w i th r es pect t o w al ki ng, R agus a t es t i f i ed thatshe fe l l dow n s ever al t i m es betw een he rs ur gery and her t erm i nati on , on ce sprai ning her kn ee, bu tshe off ered speci fi c evidence ab ou ton l y tw o fal l s. A s t o the knee s pr ai n, w hi ch occ urr ed i n the s tr eet , R agus a ac know l edged thats he had cr os s ed the s tr eeti n ques t i on w i thouti nci dentm or e than a hundr ed t i m es dur i ng the 2004- 05 s chool year , and thats he did no tk no w w hatcaus ed hert o f al l . A s t o the s econd f

al l , s he tes tified th a t so m e o n e p u sh e d h e r. F in a lly , w ith re sp e c t to sp e a k in g , R a g u sa tes tified o n ly that sh e fe are d that o thers w o u ld b e u n ab le t o u n d erstan d h er. N o evi den ce indi cat ed that other s had s uch di f

f i cul ty. O n thi s r ecor d, n o reas onabl e f act f i ndercoul d i dent i f

y the r equi s i t e s ubs t ant i al l i m i t at i on.A ss u m in g a rg u e n d o th a t R a g u sa ’s p u tativ e h o stile w o rk e n v iro n m e n t c laim is 3 p r o p e r l y b e f

o r e u s , a n d wi th o u td e c i d i n g wh e th e rs u c h a c l a i m i s a v a i l a b l e u n d e rth e ADA, w e not e thatR agus a’ s fa i l ur e t o dem ons tr at e thatshe i s a qual i f i ed i ndi vi dual w oul d def eat any s uch cl ai m . C f

. K as s nerv. 2nd A ve. D el i cat es s en I nc. , 496 F. 3d 229, 241 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( obs ervi ng thatt o pr ove hos t i l e w ork envi r onm entunderA ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym ent 5 W e l i kew i s e agr ee w i th t he di s tr i ctcour tt hatR agus a f ai l ed t o r ai s e a j ury ques t i on as t o w hetherd efenda nt s r egar ded heras di s abl ed. See 42 U . S. C . § 12102( 3) . U nderthe or i gi nal s t atut e, i tw as “notenough . . . t hatt he em pl oyerre gar ded [ the pl ai nt i f f ] as s om ehow di s abl ed; r ather, the pl ai nt i f f m us ts how thatthe empl oyerr egar ded [ her ] as . . . havi ng an i m pai rm entthats ubs t ant i al l y l i m i t ed a maj orl i f e ac t i vi ty. ” C ol w el l v. Suf f ol k C ounty Pol i ce De p ’ t , 1 5 8 F . 3 d a t6 4 6 ( i n t e rn a l c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) , s u p e r s e d e d b y 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 2 1 0 2 ( 3 ) ( A) ( 2008) . R agus a has notm ade the r equi r ed s how i ng. She poi nt s t o eval uat i ons cr i t i cal of her t eac hi ng per f

orm ance , butthes e demonstr at e thatdef endant s re gar ded heras i nef f ect i ve, not di s abl ed. O urde novo r evi ew of the r ecor d r evea l s onl y one i ns t ance i n w hi ch an e val uat or re fe re n c e d R a g u sa ’s a lleg e d d isa b ili ty : in res p o n se to R a g u sa ’s c laim th a t “[h e r] d isa b ili ty m a[ de] i tdi f

f i cul tt o hearthe s tudent s , ” the eva l uat ors ugges t ed as ki ng stud ent s t o r epea t themsel ves ormovi ng c l os ert o them. R atherthan r egar di ng R agus a as s ubs t ant i al l y l i m i t ed, th e e v a lu a to r a p p e a rs to h a v e re g a rd e d h e r d iffic u lty a s e a sily a c c o m m o d a ted . N o r is R agus a’ s al l egat i on thatpr i nci pal G l enda G ood- Pot t ers t at ed thatR agu sa ha d “cha nged” fo llo w in g h e r s u rg e ry s u ff ic ie n t to d e m o n s tra te th a t G o o d -P o tter r e g a rd e d h e r a s s u b sta n tially l i m i t ed i n any maj orl i f e ac t i vi ty. B eca us e w e conc l ude thatR agus a f ai l ed t o adduce evi dence s uf f i ci entt o es t abl i s h that s he w a s a qu a l i f

i e d i nd i vi du a l w i th a di s a bi l i ty, w e a f f i rm t he gr a ntof

s umm a ry j udgm ent wi th r e s p e c tt o h e rADA d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c l a i m. 3A ct , 29 U . S. C . § 621 ets eq. , “pl ai nt i f f m us tal s o de m ons tr at e thats he w as s ubj ect ed t o the h o sti li ty b ec au se o f he r m em b ersh ip in a p rotected cl ass” ( interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted)). R agus a nee d notbe di s abl ed w i thi n the meani ng of the A D A t o pur s ue herr et al i at i on 4 cl ai m , pr ovi ded s he ca n demonstr at e “agood f ai th, r eas onabl e bel i ef

thatthe under l yi ng chal l enged a ct i ons of

the empl oyervi ol at ed the l aw . ” Sarno v. D ougl as E l l i m an- G i bbons & Iv e s , In c ., 1 8 3 F . 3 d 1 5 5 , 1 5 9 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 6 2. R et al i at i on T o m ake ou ta pr i m a f aci e cl ai m of

r et al i at i on, R agus a musts how that( 1) s he

4 engage d i n A D A - pr ot ect ed act i vi ty ( 2) of w hi ch def

endant s w er e aw ar e, ( 3) s he w as s ubj ect ed t o an adver s e empl oym enta ct i on, a nd ( 4) a c aus al c onnect i on e xi s t ed betw een the adver s e empl oym entact i on and herpr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty. See Tre gl i a v. T ow n of M anl i us , 313 F .3 d 7 1 3 , 7 1 9 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). D e fe n d a n ts th e n m u st p ro ffe r a n o n -d isc rim in a to ry ra tio n a le f orthe cha l l enged a ct i on, w her eupon the bur den s hi f t s back t o R agus a t o show that def endant s ’ r at i onal e i s pr et extual . See i d. at721. U pon de no vo revi ew , w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthat , w hi l e the t empora l pr oxi m i ty betw een Ragusa ’ s t ermi na t i on a ndhe ra tt orne y’ s c on t a c t s w i th d e f e nd a nt s s a t i s f

i es the ca us at i on el ementof herpr i m a f

aci e cas e, i ti s i ns uf

f i ci entt o c r eat e a ques t i on of f actas t o w hetherdef

endant s ’ prof

f er ed non- r et al i at ory r at i onal e f ort erm i nat i ng R agus a, i . e. , her poorper f

orm ance as document ed i n tw enty- f i ve det ai l ed cl as s r oom eval uat i ons , w as pr et extual . A ccor di ngl y, w e r ej ectR agus a’ s c hal l enge t o the aw ar d of s um m ary j udgm ent on hercl ai m of

r et al i at ory t erm i nat i on. R agus a cont ends thatthe di s tr i ctcour tn everthel es s err ed by notcons i der i ng her a lleg a tio n th a t d e fe n d a n ts’ re talia tio n w a s m a n ife ste d b y e v id e n c e th a t th e y s u b jec ted h e r to empl oym entcon dit i ons more di f f i cul tthan thos e underw hi ch s he had pr evi ous l y w orked.I ns of aras R agus a al l eges t hatdef endant s r et al i at ed aga i ns therby r ef us i ng her 5 re q u e sts to (1 ) re c e iv e a n e w s c h e d u le u p o n h e r F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 3 re tu rn to sc h o o l, (2 ) te a c h in a sin g le classro o m d u ri n g the 2 0 0 3 -04 sch o o l yea r, an d (3) a ssu m e a d ep arti n g teac h er’s s chedul e i n Janua ry 2004, t hos e act i ons ar e pr oper l y cons trued as f ai l ur es t o acc om m odat e, i . e. , di s cr i m i nat i on, notr et al i at i on. 7 Speci f i cal l y, R agus a al l eges thati n r es ponse t o her2003- 05 r eques t s thats he be pe rm i tt ed t o teach i n a si ng l e cl assr oo m , defend ants no ton l y d enied tho se r equ est s, requi ri ng R agu sa i n 2004- 05 t o t eac h f

ours ubj ect s i n f

ourdi f f ere ntcl as s r oom s , butas s i gned hert o t eac h a s i xth- gr ade c l as s that( 1) w as l ocat ed i n a s epar at e bui l di ng acr os s the s tr eet , ( 2) f el l out s i de R agu sa’ s cert i fi cat i on , and (3) i ncluded nu m erous s pecial educati on stud ents requi ri ng cl ose s upervi s i on. 5 W hi l e R agus a’ s compl ai ntm i ghthave be en cl ear eri n art i cul at i ng thi s theory of r et al i at i on, w e concl ude thati tw as s uf f i ci entt o pl ace def

endant s on not i ce thats he i nt ended t o pur s ue s uch an ar gu m ent. See C om pl . ¶ 49 ( “D ef endant s i gnor ed R agus a’ s r epea t ed r eques t s f

ora r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on, and i ns t ead a ct i vely crea t ed a mor e cha l l engi ng and dange r ous w ork envi r onm entforh er . . . . ” ( emphasi s added) ) . Fur ther , i n oppos i ng def endant s ’ s um m ary j udgm entm ot i on, R agus a i ndi cat ed thats he vi ew ed hert erm i nat i on a s th e c u l mi n a t i o n , n o tth e e n t i r e ty , o f d e f e n d a n t s ’ r e t a l i a t i o n . S e e P l . ’ s M e m. Op p . S u mm. J . at17 ( “W hen R agus a r eques t ed ac comm odat i ons f orherdi s abi l i ty, the D ef endant s began a sy stem ati c p rog ram o f retal iat ing ag ains t herforher req u est, w h ich c li m ax ed after R ag u sa’s law y er c o n tacted the D istri ct on h er b eh alf. ”). R ag u sa’s v erb al req u ests that d efe n d an ts ac co m m o d ate h er a sserted d isab il ity sati sfy the f i r s ttw o el ement s of

the pr i m a f

aci e t es tf

orr et al i at i on, s ee W ei xel v. B d. of E duc. of C i ty of N . Y . , 287 F. 3d 138, 149 (2d C i r. 2002) , and the t empora l pr oxi m i ty betw een8

R a g u sa ’s r e q u e sts a n d h e r re c e ip t o f th e 2 0 0 4 -0 5 six th -g ra d e a ss ig n m e n t is su ffic ien t to p e rm it a n in fe re n c e o f c a u s a tio n , s e e Q u in n v . G re e n T re e C re d it C o rp ., 159 F . 3d 759, 769 ( 2d C i r . 1998) . T hus , w e exami ne w hetherthatas s i gnm entcoul d be f ound t o cons t i tut e an adv ers e em ploym ent act i on , m i nd ful that the k ey inquiry is w hetherthe eff ectof defendan t s’ deci s i on w as “mat er i al l y adver s e, ” i . e. , “‘ harm f ul to t he po i ntthat[ i t ] coul d w el l di s s uade a r eas onabl e w orkerf

r om m aki ng ors upport i ng a cha r ge of di s cr i m i nat i on. ’ ” H i cks v. B ai nes , 593 F. 3d 159, 165 ( 2d C i r . 2010) ( quot i ng Burl i ngt on N . & Sant a Fe R y. v. W hi t e, 548 U . S. 53, 69 ( 2006) ) ( anal yzi ng r et al i at i on cl ai m underT i t l e V I I , 42 U . S . C . § 2000e et s eq. ) ; s ee a l s o L ovej oy- W i l s on v. N O C O M ot orFuel , I nc. , 263 F. 3d 208, 223 ( 2d C i r . 2001) (no ti n g that sam e a n alytical fr am ew o rk g o v ern s T it le V II an d A D A retali ati o n claim s). U nd er othe r cir cum st ances, the 2 00 4-05 si xth- grade assi gn m ent of w hich R agu sa compl ai ns m i ghtf

al l s hor tof

an adver s e em pl oym entact i on. C ons trui ng the f act s i n the l i ght m ostfavorabl e t o R agu sa, ho w ever, a reas on able j ury could conclude that, al tho ug h R agu sa w as not“di s abl ed” w i thi n the meani ng of the A D A , the adde d chal l enge of the s i xth- gr ade as s i gnm entcaus ed herthe r equi s i t e “i nj ury orharm , ” H i cks v . B ai nes , 593 F. 3d at165 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) , t o cons t i tute an adver s e empl oym entact i on, s ee B ur l i ngt on N . & Sant a Fe R y. v. W hi t e, 548 U . S. at69 ( not i ng that“the s i gni f i canc e of any gi ven ac tof

r et al i at i on w i l l of

t en depe nd upon the part i cul arci r cumst ance s , ” s o that“an a ct that w o u ld b e im m aterial in so m e situ ati o n s is m aterial in o thers” ). W e f ur therconcl ude thatbeca us e R agus a w as notcert i f i ed t o t eac h s i xth gr ade a nd the new as s i gnm entpr es ent ed herw i th pa r t i cul art eac hi ng chal l enges , the r ecor d i s s uf f i ci ent t o r ai s e a que s t i on of

pr et extr egar di ng def

endant s ’ pr of

f er ed r at i onal e f

orher2004- 059

teac h ing assig n m en t, i. e., incre asin g h er c h an ce s o f suc ce ss d u ri n g h e r th ir d p rob ati o n ary y e a r. C o n stru in g th is re c o rd in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to R a g u sa , a re a so n a b le ju ry c o u ld f i nd thatdef

endant s m ade the 2004- 05 as s i gnm entno tt o enhanc e R agus a’ s l i kel i hood of s ucce s s butt o guar ant ee herfa i l ur e. See gener al l y T erry v. A s hcr of t , 336 F. 3d 128, 140- 47 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng t hatpl ai nt i f f ra i s ed ques t i on of pr et extby adduci ng evi dence , i nt er ali a, th at “h is sup erv isors tr an sferred h im in o rde r t o ind u ce h im to resign ”). A cc o rdin g ly, w e v ac ate tha t part of th e su m m ary jud g m e n t aw a rd d ism iss in g R ag u sa’s re talia tio n c laim b a se d o n h e r 2 0 0 4 -0 5 tea c h in g a ss ig n m e n t. W e have cons i der ed R agus a’ s re m ai ni ng ar gum ent s on appeal , and w e conc l ude that th e y a re w ith o u t m e rit. T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt is V A C A T E D in so fa r a s it di s m i s s es R agus a’ s r et al i at i on cl ai m bas ed on her2004- 05 t eac hi ng as s i gnm entand A FFIRM E D i n al l otherr es pect s . T he ca s e i s R E M A N D E D forf urtherpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s deci s i on. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt