Employment discrimination and hostile work environment claims are often difficult to prove, and frequently fail at the summary judgment stage. That is, there are many decisions in which a judge rules that there simply isn’t enough evidence to get to a jury on these issues. In that instance, the court is not taking on the role of the jury, but rather is determining that, essentially, there is nothing for a jury to decide.
For this reason, cases in which there is sufficient evidence to get to a jury are often worth reviewing, since they provide examples of the nature and quantity of evidence that will suffice to unlock the doors to the holy grail of litigation – a jury trial of disputed issues of fact.
One such case is Salazar v. Ferrara Bros. Bldg. Materials Corp., decided by the Eastern District of New York on April 6, 2015. There, the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s race discrimination and hostile work environment claims.
In evaluating plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim, the court applied the three-step burden-shifting framework adopted by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green.
After finding that plaintiff presented a sufficient “prima facie case” and that defendants articulated a “legitimate nondiscriminatory reason” for the challenged employment decision (here, termination), the burden shifted to plaintiff to “point to evidence that would be sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to conclude that the employer’s reason is pretextual and that it masks the employer’s true discriminatory reason.”
The court held that plaintiff satisfied his burden:
Salazar has presented evidence sufficient for a jury to infer that Ferrara Brothers’ stated reason for firing him is a pretext, and that they were motivated by a discriminatory purpose. First, Salazar has presented evidence of Ferrara Brothers’ hiring practices, which shows they employ mostly white males, and all but a small number of supervisors and managers are white males. Although there is some discrepancy in the data regarding how many employees Ferrara Brothers had during the relevant time period and how many minority employees they hired and fired, the EEO–1 Worksheet supports the argument that there was a mostly white environment at work where minority employees were mostly supervised by white males.
Second, Salazar has presented evidence that he has suffered from discrimination because of his race, including discrimination by those with decision-making authority over him. Salazar testified in his deposition that he experienced discrimination from supervisor Brian Ferrara, a supervisor named John, and supervisor Joseph Ferrara. Salazar also testified that Annunziata made discriminatory remarks towards him. Even though Annunziata may not have been a formal supervisor, Salazar has at least created a question of fact as to Annunziata’s actual role within the company. Indeed, Annunziata communicated Salazar’s termination to him, and Salazar believed he was a supervisor. All of these facts, taken together and viewed in the light most favorable to Salazar, suggest that those with authority over him made discriminatory remarks towards him and treated him in a discriminatory manner.
Finally, Salazar has raised a factual dispute regarding the discrete facts leading to his termination. Viewing the events surrounding Salazar’s termination in the light most favorable to him, Salazar found a piece of equipment near his truck, tried to return it immediately but could not, but then returned it as soon as he was able. Moreover, in Peter Montella’s deposition, he said that he thought Salazar had just moved the equipment out of the way, and was not stealing it. The defendants point out that the investigation was “led by” Hyorki Valderrma, a Hispanic employee, whom Salazar does not accuse of bias. This fact may help the defendants persuade a jury, but it hardly justifies a determination as a matter of law that no discrimination occurred. The defendants also argue that because the same person hired and fired Salazar, that weakens Salazar’s case. Again, this fact weighs against Salazar, but it is only one factor among many and does not negate Salazar’s prima facie case.
Assuming as [the court] must that Salazar’s version of the events is true, he has put forward evidence that would allow a jury to find that the performance issue on which defendants rely was not the real reason for firing Salazar, but discrimination was.
In upholding plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, the court explained:
[i]f believed by the jury, Salazar’s testimony that he was subjected to frequent racial slurs and offensive comments would support the inference that his working environment was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.