Levitant v. City of New York Human Resources Administration
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176836, 2012 WL 6212658, 914 F. Supp. 2d 281 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Title VII, a series of minor annoyances, inconveniences, or alterations of job responsibilities that do not materially alter the terms and conditions of employment do not, individually or in the aggregate, constitute a materially adverse employment action sufficient to support a claim for retaliation.
Facts:
- Zinoviy Levitant, an employee of the New York City Human Resources Administration (NYCHRA) of Russian origin, had several contentious incidents with supervisors at the Brooklyn Adult Protective Services (Brooklyn APS) office.
- On August 8, 2003, following a verbal altercation with supervisors Martha Barnes and Sandra Brown, Levitant left the office and did not return.
- On August 12, 2003, Levitant filed his first internal complaint with the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), alleging race and national origin discrimination by his supervisors.
- After taking medical and annual leave, Levitant returned to work in November 2003 and was reassigned to the Lombardi Program in Manhattan, which resulted in a longer commute from his home in Brooklyn.
- At the Lombardi Program, Levitant's supervisor, Debora Daniel-Preudhomme, allegedly told him not to speak Russian during personal phone calls, even on his lunch breaks.
- On March 24, 2004, Levitant was interviewed for a Supervisor I position at Brooklyn APS by Ms. Anderson and Ms. Brown, the same supervisors he had previously filed complaints against.
- Levitant was not selected for the promotion; the two candidates who were hired had lower civil service list numbers (indicating higher test scores) than Levitant.
- Levitant filed subsequent charges of discrimination with the EEOC in February 2004 and July 2004.
Procedural Posture:
- Zinoviy Levitant sued his employer, the City of New York Human Resources Administration (NYCHRA), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- Levitant's complaint alleged employment discrimination (hostile work environment, failure to promote) and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- NYCHRA filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court denied.
- The case proceeded to a five-day jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant NYCHRA on the discrimination claims but found in favor of plaintiff Levitant on the retaliation claim.
- The jury awarded Levitant $250,000 in compensatory damages for the retaliation claim.
- Following the verdict, NYCHRA filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively, for a new trial or remittitur.
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 legally sufficient evidence support a jury's finding that an employee suffered a materially adverse employment action in retaliation for protected activity, where the alleged actions consisted of a temporary suspension of unknown duration while on leave, a one-week reassignment delay, a transfer resulting in a longer commute, a prohibition on speaking a foreign language on personal calls, and a denial of promotion for which other candidates had superior objective qualifications?
Opinions:
Majority - Matsumoto, District Judge
No. The evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support the jury's verdict that Levitant suffered a materially adverse employment action. A materially adverse action must be one that would have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. Here, the alleged retaliatory acts, viewed individually and in the aggregate, did not meet this standard. The suspension occurred while Levitant was already on voluntary leave and had no discernible employment consequences. The one-week delay in reassignment and the longer commute from the subsequent transfer were mere inconveniences, not material changes to his employment conditions. Performing supervisory tasks without a title change was not a materially negative alteration, and the prohibition on speaking Russian during personal calls was not a change in the terms and conditions of employment. Finally, NYCHRA provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the failure to promote—the selected candidates had superior civil service test scores—and Levitant failed to show this reason was pretextual.
Analysis:
This case provides a detailed application of the 'materially adverse employment action' standard for Title VII retaliation claims, as established in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. v. White. It demonstrates that courts will rigorously scrutinize the evidence to distinguish between significant, harmful employment actions and 'trivial harms' or 'petty slights' that do not rise to the level of actionable retaliation. The court's 'zero plus zero is zero' aggregation analysis emphasizes that a collection of minor inconveniences will not automatically constitute a materially adverse action. The decision also reinforces the strength of a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, such as adherence to a civil service ranking system, in defeating a failure-to-promote claim, even when there is evidence of prior conflict between the employee and the decision-makers.
