In Rodriguez v. Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority, 23-CV-87-LJV, 2024 WL 3861247 (W.D.N.Y. August 19, 2024), the court, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim of race discrimination asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
To state a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, the plaintiff must show (1) that she is a member of a protected class; (2) that she was qualified for employment in the position; (3) that she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that she has some minimal evidence suggesting an inference that the employer acted with discriminatory motivation. If the plaintiff meets her burden, the defendant is presumed to have unlawfully discriminated against her, and the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the defendant makes that showing, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the defendant’s stated reason is pretextual.
To defeat a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination need only give plausible support to a minimal inference of discriminatory motivation behind an adverse employment action. But a discrimination complaint at a minimum still must assert nonconclusory factual matter sufficient to nudge its claims across the line from conceivable to plausible to proceed. For example, a court can infer discrimination from such circumstances as “the employer’s criticism of the plaintiff’s performance in ethnically degrading terms; its invidious comments about others in the employee’s protected group; the more favorable treatment of employees not in the protected group; or the sequence of events leading to the plaintiff’s discharge.
Rodrigeuz alleges that she and other minority managers at BMHA were treated less favorably than white managers. Among other things, Rodriguez alleges that two white Housing Managers—Masiello and Sebastian—were promoted, while none of the minority managers were. Rodriguez further claims that Masiello was allowed to act as Rodriguez’s and other minority Housing Managers’ superior, although she was a peer. Additionally, Rodrigeuz assets that both Caucasian Housing Managers were assigned to housing locations with fuller staff and they were given further training opportunities, which afforded them qualifications for promotion, that Rodrigeuz and other minority managers did not obtain. And Rodriguez alleges that she was assigned lower levels of staffing than Masiello, and that her complaints of discrimination as well as those of other minority employees were ignored.
[Citations, internal quotation marks, bracketing, ellipses, and heading omitted.]
The court concluded that “[t]hese allegations, taken together, are sufficient to give plausible support to a minimal inference of discriminatory motivation, and at this stage, no more is required,” and that “[w]hether those allegations pan out after discovery is a question for another day.”