Source: https://nycrubberroomreporter.blogspot.com/2018/07/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:49:29+00:00

Document:
1. YOLLIA CAMERON brings this employment discrimination and equal rights action seeking to remedy discrimination she suffered based on gender, pregnancy, and disability in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), as amended, and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101, et seq. ("NYCHRL") with respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment.
During the academic year 2009-2010 school year, YOLLIA CAMERON was hired as a substitute teacher at P.S. 25 in Brooklyn, New York. During the fall of 2010, Principal ANITA M. COLEY and Assistant Vice-Principal ESTHER WALKER WILSON, learned of Plaintiff s pregnancy and, in violation of law, perceived her physical condition as a disability that could prevent her from functioning in her position as a substitute teacher and stopped assigning her work. YOLLIA CAMERON also lost an advancement opportunity to apply for a school secretarial position opening, which had been previously offered to her in the spring of2010 by ANITA M. COLEY, after Ms. COLEY learned of Plaintiff s pregnancy.
Plaintiff Yollia Cameron brings this Title VII and New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL") action against the New York City Department of Education ("DOE"), Anita M. Coley, and Esther Walker Wilson (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against her for being pregnant by not giving her substitute teaching assignments and by not hiring her for a secretary position. Defendants deny Plaintiffs allegations and have now moved for summary judgment.
Although Coley's statements are admissible if offered against Coley or DOE, they are not admissible if offered against Wilson. A statement by one employee is admissible against another employee under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) only if the declarant was "directly responsible" to the employee against whom the statement is being used. Rioux, 97 F.3d at 660 (quoting Zaken v. Boerer, 964 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 975, (1992)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although Wilson was "directly responsible" to Coley (as discussed in greater detail below), there is no evidence that Coley was "directly responsible" to Wilson. Coley therefore was not Wilson's agent, and for this reason, Coley's statement to Cameron is not admissible against Wilson. See id.
To survive summary judgment, in particular, a Title VII plaintiff who does not have direct evidence of discrimination must satisfy the "three-part burden-shifting test" established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 767 (2d Cir. 2002)). First, the plaintiff must establish a "prima facie case of discrimination" by showing that "(l) [s]he is a member of a protected class; (2) [s]he is competent to perform the job or is performing h[er] duties satisfactorily; (3) [s]he suffered an adverse employment decision or action; and (4) the decision or action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination based on [her] membership in the protected class." Id. (citing Farias v. Instructional Sys., Inc., 259 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir. 2001). Second, if the plaintiff successfully establishes her prima facie case, "the burden shifts to the defendant to proffer some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse decision or action." Id. Third, if the defendant does proffer such a legitimate reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove "that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasonsS but were a pretext for discrimination." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). At this stage, the plaintiff "must adduce enough evidence of discrimination so that a rational fact finder can conclude that the adverse job action was more probably than not caused by discrimination."Back v. Hastings On Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 365 F.3d 107, 123 (2d Cir. 2004).
On this record, there is no direct evidence that the reason Cameron was not offered the secretary position was because she was pregnant. Although there is direct evidence that Defendants refused to call Cameron forsubstitute teaching positionsdue to her pregnancy, this evidence does not directly relate to the secretary position. Because Cameron has provided no direct evidence of discrimination with respect to the secretary position, the McDonnell burden-shifting framework applies. On summary judgment, then, Cameron has the burden of proving that "( 1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applications; (3) she was rejected for that position; and (4) the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants having the plaintiffs qualifications." Estate of Hamilton v. City of New York, 627 F.3d 50, 55 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Petrosino v Bell Atl., 385 F.3d 210, 226 (2d Cir. 2004)), abrogated on other grounds by Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102, 108-09 (2d Cir. 2013). Cameron has not met this burden. With respect to requirement (2), there is no evidence in the record thnt Cameron ever formally applied for the secretary position and regardless, Cameron admits that she was unqualified because she never obtained a secretarial license. (Defs.' Statement & Pl.'s Resp., ¶ 45.) With respect to requirement (3), there is no evidence that Cameron was formally rejected from the position. And with respect to (4), the record shows that the secretary position was filled in August 2010, shortly after Cameron informed Defendants that she still had not obtained a secretarial license. For these reasons, Cameron cannot make out a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell with respect to her claim that she did not receive the secretary position because she was pregnant.
The NYCHRL prohibits "an employer or an employee or agent thereof, because of the actual or perceived . . . gender . . . of any person" from "discriminat[ing] against such person in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment." N.Y.C. Admin. Code§ 8-107(1)(a)(3). "Pregnancy discrimination is a form of gender discrimination under the NYCHRL." Chauca v. Abraham, 841 F.3d 86, 90 n.2 (2d Cir. 2016), as amended (Nov. 8, 2016). Before 2005, courts in this district "construed the NYCHRL to be coextensive with its federal and state counterparts." Mihalik, 715 F.3d at 108. But, in 2005, the New York City Council passed the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 (the "Restoration Act"), which clarified that NYCHRL claims should be construed more liberally than Title VII claims. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-130(a) ("The provisions of this title shall be construed liberally . . . regardless of whether federal or New York state civil and human rights laws, including those laws with provisions worded comparably to provisions of this title, have been so construed."). In the wake of the Restoration Act, "interpretations of state and federal civil rights statutes can serve only as ajloor below which the City's Human Rights law cannot fall." Mihalik, 715 F.3d at 109 (emphasis in original) (quoting Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268, 278 (2d Cir. 2009)).
Relying on the existence of this work-sharing agreement, the majority of judges in this District who have considered this issue have held that the statute of limitations for NYCHRL claims is tolled when the plaintiff files a related complaint with the EEOC. See Nixon, 2017 WL 4712420, at *4; United States v. New York City Dep't of Educ., No. 16-CV-4291 (LAK) (JCF), 2017 WL 435940, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2017) (Francis, J.),report and recommendation adopted, No. 16-CV-4291 (LAK), 2017 WL 1319695 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2017) (Kaplan, J.); Taylor v. City of New York, 207 F. Supp. 3d 293, 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (Abrams, J.); Negron v. Bank of Am. Corp., No. 15-CV-8296 (DLC), 2016 WL 7238959, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2016) (Cote, J.); Goodwine v. City of New York, No. 15-CV-2868 (JMF), 2016 WL 3017398, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2016) (Furman, J.); Mohamed v. NYU, No. 14-CV-8373 (GBD) (MHD), 2015 WL 3387218, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2015) (Dolinger, J.), report and recommendation adopted, No. 14-CV-8373 (GBD) (MHD), 2015 WL 5307391 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2015) (Daniels, J.), reconsideration denied sub nom. Mohamed v. New York Univ, No. 14-CV-8373 (GBD), 2015 WL 7076124 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 12, 2015); Allen v. New York City Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 51 F. Supp. 3d 504,511 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (Karas, J.); Pagan v. Morrisania Neighborhood Family Health Ctr., No. 12-CV-9047 WHP, 2014 WL 464787, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2014) (Pauley, J.); E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., 967 F. Supp. 2d 816, 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (Preska, J.); Sesay-Harrell v. NYC Dep't of Homeless Servs., No. 12-CV-925 (KPF), 2013 WL 6244158, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2013) (Failla, J.); Hanley v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. 12-CV-4418 (ER), 2013 WL 3192174, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 2013) (Ramos, J.); Regan v. Benchmark Co. LLC,No. 11-CV-4511 CM, 2012 WL 692056, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2012) (McMahon, J.); Wilson v. New York City Police Dep't, No. 09-CV-2632 (PAC) (HBP), 2011 WL 1215735, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2011) (Crotty, J.); Butler v. New York Health & Racquet Club, 768 F. Supp. 2d 516, 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (Maas, J.); Esposito v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 07-CV-6722 (RJS), 2008 WL 5233590, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2008) (Sullivan, J.).
Ayazi and Cincotta are inapposite because the claims there were against a school district or its officers. See Ayazi, 2012 WL 4503257, at *8; Cincotta, 2016 WL 4536873, at *18. Cincotta, in particular, held that claims brought against school districts or officers under New York State Human Rights Law are not tolled by filing a complaint with the EEOC or the NYSDHR. 2016 WL 4536873, at *18. The Cincottacourt relied on decisions reasoning that the one-year statute of limitations imposed by section 3813 of the New York Education Law ("NYEL") on claims against school districts and their officers is not tolled by EEOC filings. Id at *17-18 (quoting, e.g., Smith v. Tuckahoe Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 03-CV-7951 (PGG), 2009 WL 3170302, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2009)). Here, by contrast, NYEL § 3813 is inapplicable because Defendants Coley and Wilson are not "officer[s] of a school district." See NYEL § 2(13) (not identifying "principals" or "assistant principals" as officers); Collins v. City of New York, 156 F. Supp. 3d 448,460 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (Caproni, J.) ("Superintendents qualify as officers . . . but principals do not."); Pratt v. Indian River Cent. Sch. Dist., 803 F. Supp. 2d 135, 147 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (holding that an assistant principal is not an "officer" under NYEL § 3813). In sum, the cases Defendants cite do not overcome the clear trend in this district that the statute of limitations on NYCHRL actions is tolled during the pendency of a complaint filed with the EEOC.
In addition to bringing claims for "gender discrimination" under NYCHRL, Cameron alleges that the pregnancy discrimination she faced was "disability discrimination" because Coley and Wilson perceived her as disabled. (See Pl.'s Opp'n, at 24-25.) There is no evidence, however, that Coley and Wilson understood Cameron to be suffering from a pregnancy-related complication or non-pregnancy-related disability. The evidence instead suggests that Coley or Wilson discriminated against Cameron merely for being pregnant. (See Ex. 1, at 54:11-22.) As discussed above, there is no question that discrimination on the basis of normal pregnancy is prohibited by Administrative Code section 107(1)(a)'s prohibition against "gender" discrimination. The question, then, is whether discrimination on the basis of normal pregnancy is also prohibited by Administrative Code section 107(1)(a)'s prohibition on "disability" discrimination. For several reasons, this Court agrees with the New York Supreme Court's decision in Krause, which held that discrimination on the basis of a normal pregnancy is not "disability" discrimination under NYCHRL. See 965 N.Y.S.2d at 322.
Second, because the Administrative Code's prohibition of "gender" discrimination undeniably prohibits discrimination on the basis of normal pregnancy, it would be duplicative for discrimination on the basis of "disability" to also cover discrimination on the basis of normal pregnancy. Thus, for the same reasons that courts have held that normal pregnancy is not a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, this Court holds that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is not "disability" discrimination under Administrative Code section 8-107(1)(a). See, e.g., Johnson v. A.P. Prods., Ltd., 934 F. Supp. 625, 627 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ("Title VII and the PDA specifically covered employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, thereby obviating the need to extend the coverage of the ADA to protect pregnancy and related medical conditions.");Lehmuller, 944 F. Supp. at 1093 ("Courts have generally held that pregnancy and related medical conditions are not disabilities under the ADA.").
Third, the structure of the Administrative Code suggests that the term "disability" does not include normal pregnancy. In particular, whereas section 8-107(15) of the Administrative Code requires employers to make reasonable accommodatiorn for disabled individuals, section 8-107(22) of the Code requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant individuals. The fact that separate and distinct sections require employers to make reasonable accommodations for "disability" (on the one hand) and "pregnancy" (on the other hand) suggests that pregnancy is not a "disability." Indeed, when the New York City Council added section 8-107(22) to the Administrative Code, section 8-107(15) was already in effect. The Council nevertheless added section 8-107(22) because it was concerned about reports of discrimination against pregnant women, including those with normal pregnancies. See Administrative Code § 8-102, Note 3 (Provisions of L.L. 78/2013). The Council therefore appears to have understood that section 8-107(15) did not require reasonable accommodations for pregnant women, and thus understood that normal pregnancy is not a "disability."
 Many judges in the Eastern District of New York, as well, have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g, Berlyavsky v. New York City Dep't of Envtl. Prot., No. 14-CV-03217 (KAM) (RER), 2015 WL 5772266, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2015), report and recommendation adopted as modified, No. 14-CV-3217 (KAM) (RER), 2015 WL 5772255 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2015), reconsideration dented, No. 14-CV-3217 (KAM) (RER), 2016 WL 1383486 (E.D.N Y. Apr. 7, 2016), aff'd, 671 F. App'x 836 (2d Cir. 2016); Bowen-Hooks v. City of New York, 13 F. Supp. 3d 179, 208 (E.D.N.Y. 2014); Shah v. MTA New York City Transit, No. 12-CV-4276 (ERK) (RLM), 2013 WL 504387, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2013); Sundaram v. Brookhaven Nat Labs, 424 F. Supp. 2d 545, 565 (E.D.N.Y. 2006).

References: § 2000
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3813
 § 2
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3813
 v. 
 § 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.