Joseph v. Treglia v. Town of Manlius
13 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1537, 313 F.3d 713, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 26120 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee can establish a prima facie case of retaliation and overcome a motion for summary judgment by demonstrating a close temporal relationship between their protected activity and subsequent adverse employment actions, along with other evidence suggesting the employer's proffered legitimate reasons for the actions are pretextual.
Facts:
- In April 1996, Joseph Treglia, a road patrol officer for the Town of Manlius Police Department since 1990, experienced an epileptic seizure while off-duty.
- Following his return to work, Treglia alleged the department's attitude towards him changed negatively, resulting in increased scrutiny, fewer investigative assignments, and reduced overtime opportunities.
- In November 1996, Treglia complained to his superior, Sergeant Barry, that he believed the department was illegally treating him differently because of his medical condition.
- In February 1997, Police Chief Richard Carbery promoted two other officers to sergeant over Treglia, despite Treglia having the highest score on the relevant civil service examination.
- When Treglia asked Chief Carbery about the decision, the Chief allegedly stated that Treglia would not receive a promotion 'now or ever' and that it was a 'good time for him to get out of the business.'
- In April 1997, Treglia filed formal charges of disability discrimination with the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYDHR) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- After filing the charges, Treglia was subjected to three internal investigations, received his first negative performance evaluation, was assigned to undesirable shifts, and was involuntarily placed on disability leave.
- In March 1999, Treglia was again passed over for a promotion to sergeant in favor of an officer with a lower civil service exam score.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Treglia filed a complaint against the Town of Manlius in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
- In October 1999, the district court granted the Town's motion to dismiss Treglia's federal and state discrimination claims and his common law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The district court denied the Town's motion to dismiss Treglia's federal and state retaliation claims.
- Following discovery, the Town of Manlius moved for summary judgment on the remaining retaliation claims.
- In October 2001, the district court granted the Town's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the retaliation claims.
- Treglia, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment on his retaliation claims and the earlier dismissal of his state discrimination claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext in a retaliation claim sufficient to survive summary judgment by presenting evidence of a close temporal proximity between protected activity and adverse employment actions, as well as direct evidence of retaliatory animus from a supervisor?
Opinions:
Majority - Feinberg, Circuit Judge
Yes. A plaintiff raises a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment on a retaliation claim by showing that adverse employment actions closely followed protected activities and by presenting evidence that the employer's stated non-retaliatory reasons are pretextual. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show: (1) protected activity, (2) employer awareness, (3) adverse employment action, and (4) a causal connection. Treglia engaged in protected activities by complaining to his superior and filing EEOC charges, and the Town was aware. The district court erred by finding no adverse employment action; such actions are not limited to pecuniary harm and include failure to promote, negative evaluations, and undesirable assignments. The causal connection was established by the close temporal proximity between Treglia's protected activities and the Town's adverse actions. Although the Town offered legitimate reasons (e.g., Treglia's alleged difficulty working with others), Treglia provided sufficient evidence of pretext for a jury to consider, including Chief Carbery's statements that Treglia would never be promoted and that the department could 'play hard ball too,' which contradict the Town's official reasoning and Treglia's prior positive performance reviews.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a broad interpretation of what constitutes an 'adverse employment action' for the purposes of a retaliation claim, clarifying that it extends beyond purely economic consequences like termination or pay cuts. The court's focus on the combination of temporal proximity and direct evidence of retaliatory animus provides a clear pathway for plaintiffs to demonstrate pretext and survive summary judgment. This ruling strengthens protections for employees who engage in protected activities, making it more difficult for employers to dismiss retaliation claims by offering facially legitimate but potentially pretextual justifications for their actions.
