Opinion ID: 3150045
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New York City Human Rights Law

Text: In addition to her federal claims, Chen also argues that Calichman, Lesen, Murphy, and Paaswell violated the NYCHRL because they discriminated against her on the basis of race, national origin, and gender, and because they retaliated against her for filing an Affirmative Action Complaint. Based on the evidence in the record, no reasonable jury could agree with Chen’s claims. advantage of a course release. She has failed, however, to identify any publications that Calichman did not consider, to connect these allegations to the relevant employment decisions, or to provide any admissible evidence of how other similarly situated professors were treated. These assertions are therefore insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial. 34 “[F]or many years, the NYCHRL was construed to be coextensive with its federal and state counterparts.” Velazco v. Columbus Citizens Found., 778 F.3d 409, 410 (2d Cir. 2015) (per curiam). But in 2005, the New York City Council amended the law to emphasize that “interpretations of state and federal civil rights statutes can serve only as a floor below which the [NYCHRL] cannot fall” and that the NYCHRL should “be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes thereof.” Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102, 109 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005, § 7, N.Y.C. Local L. No. 85). In light of these revisions “courts must analyze NYCHRL claims separately and independently from any federal and state law claims, construing [its] provisions ‘broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible.’” Id. (quoting Albunio v. City of New York, 16 N.Y.3d 472, 477‐78 (2011) (internal citations omitted). New York courts seeking to heed the City Council’s command have approached discrimination and retaliation claims under a similar framework. In both situations, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, and the defendant then has the opportunity to offer legitimate reasons for its actions. See Bennett v. 35 Health Mgmt. Sys., 936 N.Y.S.2d 112, 124 (1st Dep’t 2011). If the defendant satisfies that burden, summary judgment is appropriate if no reasonable jury could conclude either that the defendant’s “reasons were pretextual,” Melman v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 946 N.Y.S.2d 27, 35 (1st Dep’t 2012), or that the defendant’s stated reasons were not its sole basis for taking action, and that its conduct was based at least “in part on discrimination,” id. at 41 (quoting Aulicino v. New York City Dep’t of Homeless Servs., 580 F.3d 73, 80 (2d Cir. 2009)). In other words, summary judgment is appropriate if “the record establishes as a matter of law” that discrimination or retaliation “play[ed] no role” in the defendant’s actions. Mihalik, 715 F.3d at 110 n.8 (quoting Garcia v. Hartford Police Dep’t, 706 F.3d 120, 127 (2d Cir. 2013)); see also Williams v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 872 N.Y.S.2d 27, 38, 40 n.27 (1st Dep’t 2009).13 Viewed through this lens, we agree with the district court’s decision that Chen has not presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude 13 We note that, at least in the discrimination context, this inquiry closely mirrors the questions that courts must answer when resolving summary judgment motions on Title VII claims. After all, once a Title VII claimant raises a prima facie case of discrimination and the employer offers a legitimate explanation, the court considers whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer’s decision was motivated, in whole or in part, by discrimination. The plaintiff can survive summary judgment by showing that “the employer’s stated reason for the adverse employment action is entirely pretextual,” or that the employer had “mixed motives,” one of which was the desire to discriminate. See Holcomb, 521 F.3d at 141‐42. 36 that discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, or gender played a role in the Individual Defendants’ actions. As explained above, Calichman, Lesen, and Murphy provided a legitimate reason for expressing negative opinions about Chen’s conduct. Chen has failed to raise a genuine dispute about whether those “complaints . . . were made in good faith.” Melman, 946 N.Y.S.2d at 36. Even under the NYCHRL, “[t]he mere fact that [a] plaintiff may disagree . . . [and] think that [her] behavior was justified does not raise an inference of pretext.” Id. (quoting Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 312 (2004) (brackets omitted). Nor do Calichman’s reference to “collegiality” or Lesen’s use of the word “stop” sufficiently support Chen’s claim; no reasonable jury could conclude, in context, that either evinced discriminatory intent. Turning to Chen’s retaliation claim, we note that NYCHRL’s retaliation provision is broader than Title VII’s — protecting plaintiffs who “oppos[e] any practice forbidden under” the law from conduct “reasonably likely to deter a person engaging in such action.” Mihalik, 715 F.3d at 112; see also N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8‐107(7). Chen’s NYCHRL claim, however, still relies principally on the idea that she was retaliated against because of her Affirmative Action Complaint; she has not identified any earlier time when she “opposed any practice forbidden 37 under” the NYCHRL. Thus, she must show that Calichman, Lesen, Murphy, and Paaswell engaged in some prohibited conduct and that their decision to do so was “caused at least in part by . . . retaliatory motives.” Id. at 113; see also Brightman v. Prison Health Serv., 970 N.Y.S.2d 789, 789 (2d Dep’t 2013). Chen’s retaliation claim fails even under this broader provision. To begin, there is simply no evidence that Lesen or Murphy engaged in any conduct “reasonably likely to deter a person” from complaining about NYCHRL violations after Chen filed her Affirmative Action Complaint. See Melman, 946 N.Y.S.2d at 42 (noting that a defendant cannot “be deemed to have retaliated against plaintiff simply by denying that it was discriminating against him and confronting him with [his] professional lapses”). Nor has Chen presented facts from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Calichman’s advocacy against Chen’s reappointment or Paaswell’s rejection of her appeal were motivated, in part, by retaliation. As explained above, Calichman took note of comments about Chen’s “overaggressiveness and lack of tact” in her first year of teaching and, in his view, her confrontation with the Student and handling of the aftermath confirmed those concerns. Calichman expressed those opinions in a professional evaluation long before Chen’s Affirmative Action complaint and 38 reiterated the concerns when advocating against Chen’s reappointment. Cf. Mihalik, 715 F.3d at 116 (denying summary judgment when defendant “presented no evidence that anyone confronted [plaintiff] about [performance] problems” until plaintiff complained). Under these circumstances, the fact that Chen’s reappointment decision came soon after her Affirmative Action complaint is insufficient to support a claim of retaliatory discharge: Chen was reviewed along with all other assistant professors and, in light of CCNY’s review system, Calichman had no earlier opportunity to voice his opinion on Chen’s reappointment. See Suriel v. Dominican Rep. Educ. & Mentoring Proj., Inc., 926 N.Y.S.2d 198, 202 (3d Dep’t 2011). Chen has also presented no evidence that Paaswell’s decision was based on anything other than considering her record in light of his discussions with Calichman and other faculty members. Accordingly, the district court was therefore correct to grant all of the defendants summary judgment on Chen’s retaliation claim. In sum, after conducting a separate analysis for Chen’s NYCHRL claims, we conclude that the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to the Individual Defendants was correct. We therefore affirm its decision.14 14 Because we conclude that Chen has failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that CUNY violated Title VII or that the Individual Defendants 39