Opinion ID: 782711
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Alleged retaliatory transfer in October 1994

Text: 47 On October 11, 1994, when Terry returned from a nearly three-month-long medical leave, he was transferred to the Criminal Aliens Section, the INS unit supervised by Farrell Adams. Terry alleges that this transfer was in retaliation for his EEO complaints and points to a tape recorded phone conversation he had in 1999 with Roger Mayo, Terry's supervisor before the transfer. In that conversation, Terry asked Mayo why he was transferred and Mayo responded that, My belief is that they were trying to screw you. In his subsequent deposition, Mayo downplayed the comment, explaining that by screw he had meant discipline, and that the transfer had been an attempt to discipline Terry by placing him under Adams who was thought to be a tougher supervisor than Mayo. 48 Defendants respond that the transfer was not retaliatory because it occurred two years after Terry made an EEO complaint in June of 1993 concerning his non-selection for Vacancy 92-59. This ignores the fact that Terry had filed other EEO complaints in November 1993 and September 1994, and that — given that Terry was on leave when he filed the latter and October 11 was apparently his first day back — it would not have been possible to subject him to a retaliatory transfer for that complaint at any earlier point in time. Defendants also contend that Mayo's comments merely indicated that the transfer was a form of discipline. However, even assuming that this was the case, it does not show a lack of retaliation, as discipline can be retaliatory if done to punish an individual for complaining. Thus, Terry has presented sufficient evidence for a trier-of-fact to conclude that the transfer was in retaliation for his EEO activity. 49 Terry has also presented sufficient evidence for a trier-of-fact to conclude that the transfer was an adverse employment action. An internal transfer can be an adverse employment action if accompanied by a negative change in the terms and conditions of employment. Morris v. Lindau, 196 F.3d 102, 113 (2d Cir.1999). In Richardson, 180 F.3d at 444, we held that a plaintiff had sufficiently alleged an adverse employment action when she testified that she believed the defendant had transferred her to a different position in the hopes that she would quit. Similarly, Terry alleges that the INS transferred him into Adams's unit with the intent to harass him, and has put forth evidence sufficient to permit a trier-of-fact to conclude that his supervisors believed that he would find the new assignment to be adverse. Indeed, even defendants' proffered reason — that the transfer was intended to discipline Terry — suggests that the INS supervisors who ordered the transfer perceived it as adverse. Terry clearly also felt it to be adverse and within two days of starting in Adams' unit, Terry was having personal problems with Adams. 50 Since Terry has put forth sufficient evidence for a trier-of-fact to conclude that his transfer was a retaliatory, adverse employment action, and since the defendants' proffered rationale of discipline is consistent with a retaliatory motive, summary judgment was not appropriate. 51