Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1374889.html
Timestamp: 2020-08-06 22:34:34
Document Index: 50339888

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u20022000', '§\u2002290', '§\u20022000', '§\u20022000', '§\u2002296', '§\u2002296']

COFFEY v. DOBBS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INC | FindLaw
COFFEY v. DOBBS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INC
No. 98-7763.
Before: PARKER, SACK, and MAGILL,* Circuit Judges. Matthew J. Clyne, Albany, New York, for Appellants. Mary Beth Hynes, Clifton Park, New York, for Appellee.
Dobbs International Services, Inc. (Dobbs) appeals from the district court's denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law following a jury verdict in favor of Paula Coffey, a former employee, on her retaliation claim brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, and the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290-301. Because Coffey failed to present sufficient evidence of retaliation, we reverse.
Only three days later, on September 1, 1997, Russo told Coffey that he would not keep her on as an employee with Ground-to-Air Catering. The parties have stipulated that “[a]t the end of plaintiff's shift [on September 1], James Russo informed her that when his new company purchased the Albany flight kitchen from Dobbs later that week, plaintiff would no longer have a job.” Trial Tr. at 279, reprinted in J.A. at 375. Coffey never returned to work at the Kitchen after September 1. She also never tried to find another job with Dobbs.
Dobbs contends that the district court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law on Coffey's retaliation claim, arguing that Coffey failed to introduce any evidence suggesting that it discharged her or refused to transfer her because of her deposition testimony. We review the district court's denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo, “applying the same standards as the district court to determine whether judgment as a matter of law was appropriate.” Merrill Lynch Interfunding, Inc. v. Argenti, 155 F.3d 113, 120 (2d Cir.1998). Judgment as a matter of law is appropriate if, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Coffey, the nonmovant, “there can be but one conclusion as to the verdict that reasonable [jurors] could have reached.” Samuels v. Air Transp. Local 504, 992 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir.1993) (quotation marks omitted).
Title VII prohibits an “employer” from retaliating against an employee because of her testimony in a lawsuit filed under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a); see also Manoharan v. Columbia Univ. College of Physicians & Surgeons, 842 F.2d 590, 593 (2d Cir.1988) (“[t]he objective of [§ 2000e-3(a) ] is obviously to forbid an employer from retaliating against an employee”). Similarly, New York's Executive Law prohibits an “employer” from retaliating against an employee for testifying in a proceeding under the New York Human Rights Law. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(1)(e). Accordingly, Coffey may prevail on her retaliation claim only if she demonstrates that her employer, not some other party, discriminated against her in retaliation for her deposition testimony. See Cross v. Cleaver, 142 F.3d 1059, 1071 (8th Cir.1998) (plaintiff must show that “the plaintiff's employer ․ took adverse employment action against [her]” (emphasis added)).
Coffey proceeded with her retaliation claim against Dobbs on two alternative bases: (1) Dobbs wrongfully discharged her on September 1, 1997, or (2) Dobbs wrongfully failed to transfer her to another job in retaliation for her deposition testimony.4 See Trial Tr. at 640-41, reprinted in J.A. at 736-37. We utilize the well-known burden-shifting scheme set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), to analyze Coffey's retaliation claims under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. See Reed v. A.W. Lawrence & Co., 95 F.3d 1170, 1177-78 (2d Cir.1996). Because this case has been fully tried on the merits, we need not determine whether Coffey established a prima facie case. See United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-15, 717, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983); see also Brocklehurst v. PPG Indus., Inc., 123 F.3d 890, 897 n. 5 (6th Cir.1997); Jiminez v. Mary Washington College, 57 F.3d 369, 377 (4th Cir.1995); Polacco v. Curators of Univ. of Mo., 37 F.3d 366, 369-70 (8th Cir.1994); Hayman v. National Academy of Sciences, 23 F.3d 535, 537 (D.C.Cir.1994). Rather, we proceed directly to “the ultimate question of discrimination vel non.” Aikens, 460 U.S. at 714, 103 S.Ct. 1478. Specifically, we must determine whether Coffey introduced sufficient evidence to support a finding that Dobbs “intentionally discriminated against [her]” in retaliation for her deposition testimony. Id. at 715, 103 S.Ct. 1478 (quotations omitted). We believe that she failed to meet this burden.
Trial Tr. at 279, reprinted in J.A. at 375. This comports with Coffey's own testimony at trial. See id. at 225, reprinted in J.A. at 321 (Coffey testifying that Russo told her that “he wasn't gonna keep [her] on” and that she “wouldn't have a job with his new company”). Russo simply did not discharge Coffey from her employment with Dobbs.
There also is no evidence that Dobbs refused to transfer Coffey in retaliation for her deposition testimony. Coffey does not dispute that Dobbs sold the Kitchen to Ground-to-Air Catering. An employer's decision to discharge an employee in connection with the closure of the employee's job site typically does not give rise to a retaliation claim. See Ekanem v. Health & Hosp. Corp., 589 F.2d 316, 320 (7th Cir.1978) (discharge of plaintiff in connection with closing of plaintiff's department “nullifies [plaintiff's] claim of retaliation”), aff'd on same grounds on appeal after remand, 724 F.2d 563, 569 (7th Cir.1983). This is particularly true when the plaintiff is not treated differently from other employees, see Smith v. Rexall Drug Co., 415 F.Supp. 591, 593-94 (E.D.Mo.1976) (“termination of plaintiff [when warehouse closed] ․ was a nondiscriminatory action as many others in plaintiff's position were also terminated”), aff'd, 548 F.2d 762 (8th Cir.1977), or has failed to request a transfer prior to the site's closure. Compare id. at 594 (employer's decision to transfer plaintiff's co-employee upon site closing was not evidence of retaliation because plaintiff never requested transfer but co-employee had) with Randlett v. Shalala, 118 F.3d 857, 862 (1st Cir.1997) (holding that an employer's denial of an employee's request for transfer can be actionable under Title VII) and Anderson v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 861 F.2d 631, 635 (10th Cir.1988) (holding that employer's denial of plaintiff's requests for transfer prior to job site's closure can support cause of action for discriminatory retaliation).
1. Coffey also pleaded common law negligence claims against Dobbs and Bryson. The district court dismissed these claims, and Coffey does not appeal that dismissal.
2. Dobbs also amended her complaint to plead a retaliation claim against both Dobbs and Bryson on an aiding and abetting theory. See N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(6) (“It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under [the New York Human Rights Law], or to attempt to do so.”). However, the jury (without objection by plaintiff) was never instructed on this theory and, thus, we will not consider it on appeal. See Getty Petroleum Corp. v. Bartco Petroleum Corp., 858 F.2d 103, 107 (2d Cir.1988) (refusing to consider viability of theory that was not submitted to the jury); see also Baas v. Hoye, 766 F.2d 1190, 1194 (8th Cir.1985) (same).
3. The jury did not award Coffey either nominal or compensatory damages on her hostile work environment claim, thus precluding her from recovering related punitive damages or attorneys' fees on that claim.
4. Although Coffey did not plead the second basis in her complaint, it was submitted to the jury.