Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180331_0000590.ENY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:45:40+00:00

Document:
MTA LONG ISLAND RAIL ROAD, defendant.
This is the second of two actions brought by plaintiff Charmaine Fraser (“plaintiff”) against her employer, defendant MTA Long Island Rail Road (“LIRR” or “defendant”). The first action - Fraser v. MTA Long Island Rail Road, No. 12-CV-5778 (SLT)(CLP) (hereafter, Fraser I) - alleged gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e et seq., as amended (“Title VII”), the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. (the “NYSHRL”), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y. City Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. (the “NYCHRL”), as well as violations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) (the “EPA”) and the New York State Equal Pay Law, N.Y. Labor Law § 194 (the “NYEPL”). In a memorandum and order dated March 31, 2018, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to the Title VII, NYSHRL and EPA claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the two causes of action brought under the NYEPL and NYCHRL, which were dismissed without prejudice to pursuing them in State court. In this second action, plaintiff brings additional retaliation claims under Title VII, the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, alleging that defendant retaliated against her by rejecting five job applications she made to the LIRR between July 2012 and July 2014. Defendant now moves for summary judgment, arguing that the claims relating to the first two rejections are time-barred and that plaintiff cannot establish a claim for retaliation with respect to the other three rejections. For the reasons set forth below, the court grants defendants' motion with respect to plaintiff's Title VII and NYSHRL retaliation claims, and declines to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's NYCHRL retaliation claim.
On January 27, 2012, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination (the “Charge”) with the New York State Division of Human Rights (the “SDHR”), alleging that defendant and several of its employees had discriminated against her on account of her gender and other protected characteristics. (Def. 56.1, ¶ 6; Pl. 56.1, ¶ 6.) The Charge, which is attached to the Zabell Declaration as Exhibit 2 and attached to the McCaffrey Declaration as Exhibit D, consists of a completed form (the “Form”) and a four-page narrative (the “Narrative”). The allegations in the Charge and the incidents which gave rise to it were discussed at length in Fraser I, and need not be repeated here. For purposes of this action, the court notes only that plaintiff checked a box on the form to allege “Retaliation, ” but that Narrative did not allege facts suggesting a Title VII retaliation claim.
Plaintiff also did not receive an interview for the position of Manager of Customer Service and Terminal Operations. According to Mary L. Centauro, the Human Resources employee responsible for filling that position, plaintiff was ineligible for the same two reasons set forth in the Meilick memorandum: (1) she did not meet the 12-month requirement and (2) was on a PIP. (Declaration of Mary L. Centauro dated Jan. 15, 2016, ¶¶ 9, 12-13.) However, there is no indication that plaintiff was ever contacted by Human Resources with respect to this application.
On January 3, 2013, before a responsive pleading was filed, plaintiff amended her complaint. The amended pleading added two new causes of action: one alleging a violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), and another alleging a violation of New York Labor Law § 194. The allegations relating to the retaliation claims were unchanged.
On March 7, 2014, plaintiff filed charge of discrimination with the EEOC and the SDHR (hereafter, the “Second Charge”), alleging retaliation. The Second Charge - which is attached to the Zabell Declaration as Exhibit 5 and attached to the McCaffrey Declaration as Exhibit W - consists of a completed form and a five-page affidavit executed by plaintiff. The form itself does not provide any particulars regarding the retaliation, but refers the reader to the attached affidavit. The form does, however, specify that the retaliation occurred from September 27, 2013, to February 21, 2014.
The affidavit specifically alleges that plaintiff has been “retaliated against by being denied the opportunity to interview for available positions” for which she was qualified. (Plaintiff's Affidavit sworn Mar. 7, 2014 (attached to the Second Charge), ¶ 27.) The affidavit contains allegations concerning all four job applications discussed above. With respect to the application for Superintendent, the affidavit alleges that plaintiff's applied for the position on September 23, 2013; that the posting for the position closed on September 27, 2013; and that plaintiff “did not receive a response from Respondent regarding the status of this application.” (Id., ¶ 23.) The affidavit contains no reference to Centauro's rejection letter to plaintiff dated October 21, 2013.
On December 11, 2014, plaintiff commenced this action, alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII, the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. The three causes of action allege that plaintiff was “retaliated against by defendant in response to her lawful complaints” to the EEOC, the SDHR, or both, and “the subsequent filing of her federal court lawsuit regarding the gender discrimination to which plaintiff was subjected . . . .” (Complaint, ¶¶ 42, 46, 50.) The causes of action themselves do not identify specific retaliatory acts.

References: v. 
 § 290
 § 8
 § 206
 § 194
 § 206
 § 194