Ortiz v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority , 615 F. App'x 702 ( 2015 )

14-3992
Ortiz v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United
3 States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
4 on the 11th day of September, two thousand fifteen.
5
6 PRESENT: JON O. NEWMAN,
7 JOHN M. WALKER, JR.,
8 DENNIS JACOBS,
9 Circuit Judges.
10
11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
12
13 MICHELLE ORTIZ,
14 Plaintiff-Appellant,
15
16 -v.- 14-3992
17
18 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,
19 JOHN D’AGOSTINO, SWAREN JATINDRANATH,
20 JOHN BERLINGIERI, KAREN TAYLOR,
21 ROSALIE GRASCIA, GARY HOYSRADT,
22 GILBERT MACHADO, ELIZABETH BRODERICK,
23 JOHN LESTER, MICHAEL PIZZO, MARY
24 O’BRIEN, HANK LOEFFEL, DIANE NASH,
25 ROBERT TERRETT, and JOSEPH MARTELLI,
26 Defendants-Appellees.
27
28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
1
1 FOR APPELLANT: ALAN E. WOLIN, Wolin & Wolin,
2 Jericho, New York.
3
4 FOR APPELLEES: HELENE R. HECHTKOPF (Ira J.
5 Lipton, on the brief), Hoguet
6 Newman Regal & Kenney, LLP, New
7 York, New York.
8
9 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
10 Court for the Southern District of New York (Broderick, J.).
11
12 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
13 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
14 AFFIRMED.
15
16 Michelle Ortiz appeals from the judgment of the United
17 States District Court for the Southern District of New York
18 (Broderick, J.), granting summary judgment in favor of
19 defendants-appellees. We assume the parties’ familiarity
20 with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the
21 issues presented for review.
22
23 We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the
24 district court in its thorough Memorandum and Order of
25 September 30, 2014.
26
27 1. Most of Ortiz’s claims are time-barred, including:
28 (1) the Title VII claims that arise from events taking place
29 before March 26, 2011; (2) the § 1983 claims that arise from
30 events taking place before February 14, 2010 and the § 1981
31 claims that arise from events taking place before February
32 14, 2009; and (3) the state-law claims that arise from
33 events taking place before April 15, 2009.
34
35 With a single exception (discussed below), Ortiz’s
36 argument that the “continuing violation” doctrine excuses
37 her untimely filing is unavailing: “multiple incidents of
38 discrimination, even similar ones, that are not the result
39 of a discriminatory policy or mechanism do not amount to a
40 continuing violation.” Lambert v. Genesee Hosp., 10 F.3d
41 46, 53 (2d Cir. 1993), overruled in part on other grounds by
42 Greathouse v. JHS Sec. Inc., 784 F.3d 105, 117 (2d Cir.
43 2015).
44
45 Ortiz’s hostile-work environment claims, however, are
46 timely under the “continuing violation” doctrine, and
47 conduct outside the limitations period may be considered.
2
1 See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 105
2 (2002) (“[C]onsideration of the entire scope of a hostile
3 work environment claim, including behavior alleged outside
4 the statutory time period, is permissible for purposes of
5 assessing liability, so long as an act contributing to that
6 hostile environment takes place within the statutory time
7 period.”).
8
9 2. On the merits, the district court properly granted
10 summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims.
11 Any workplace misconduct here was insufficiently “severe or
12 pervasive” to create a hostile work environment. Patane v.
13 Clark, 508 F.3d 106, 113 (2d Cir. 2007). Moreover, most of
14 the complained-of conduct bears no apparent connection to
15 Ortiz’s sex, race, or national origin.
16
17 3. As to the remaining discrimination claims--
18 including but not limited to Ortiz’s claims relating to
19 assignment to a hazardous post, excessive scrutiny and
20 “micromanagement” of Ortiz’s work by her supervisors, and
21 denial of a non-monetary award--the district court correctly
22 held that none qualified as adverse employment actions.
23 Some of the instances of alleged discrimination could,
24 theoretically, have qualified as adverse employment actions
25 on different facts--if, say, there were evidence that a non-
26 monetary award is critical to career advancement in this
27 particular workplace. But there is insufficient evidence in
28 the summary judgment record for a reasonable jury to find
29 for Ortiz on any of these claims.
30
31 4. Ortiz’s remaining retaliation claims all fail.
32 Among other reasons, there is no evidence that any of the
33 alleged retaliatory acts had any causal connection to
34 protected activity.
35
36 5. Ortiz’s (timely) discrimination claims under 42
37 U.S.C. § 1981 and under the New York State (and New York
38 City) Human Rights Laws, allege (1) excessive supervision
39 and (2) rejection of her application to work in a K-9 unit.
40 Both of these claims fail on the merits, for the reasons
41 stated by the district court. Although the standards
42 applicable to the New York City Human Rights Law are not the
43 same as those applicable to federal law, the record is
44 insufficient to create a triable issue under the standards
45 of the City’s law.
46
47
3
1 * * *
2
3 For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in
4 Ortiz’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of
5 the district court.
6
7 FOR THE COURT:
8 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
9
4