Harriott v. Success Academy Charter Schools

Background

Tyrell Harriott sued his former employer, Success Academy Charter Schools, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Harriott, who is African American, worked as a part-time chess instructor and sought promotion to a labsite lead position. He alleged that Success Academy did not promote him because of his race. He also alleged that Success Academy retaliated after he complained in October 2019 that Matthew Morales had engaged in racial discrimination, bullying, and harassment.

In spring 2020, Success Academy decided that only one full-time chess instructor was needed at Harriott’s school. The company selected Harriott, rather than another instructor, for transfer to a school in Queens. Harriott objected to that school and also refused a proposed transfer to another Queens school. Success Academy then told him that his employment would end on June 19, 2020. Success Academy said the transfer decision was based on Harriott’s residence, his experience building a chess program, and the other instructor’s schedule. Harriott disputed aspects of the decision and claimed that he was the only senior middle school chess coach forced to transfer.

Harriott initially asserted age-discrimination claims, but he withdrew those claims before Success Academy filed its summary-judgment motion. The motion therefore addressed his remaining race-discrimination and retaliation claims.

Summary-Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion, but that party must identify admissible evidence—not speculation, unsupported assertions, or inadmissible hearsay—from which a reasonable jury could rule in its favor.

Race-Discrimination Claims

The court analyzed Harriott’s claims under § 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law using the three-step burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. Under that framework, a plaintiff must first provide evidence supporting an initial inference of discrimination. The employer may then offer legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, after which the plaintiff must show that those reasons were a pretext—a false explanation masking discrimination.

The court held that Harriott could not establish the required initial inference of race discrimination concerning the 2019–2020 labsite lead position. Success Academy appointed Johnson, who is African American, to the position, and also appointed other African American employees to labsite lead and higher-ranking positions. The court stated that it is extremely difficult to establish an initial discrimination case when the employer promotes another member of the plaintiff’s protected racial group, and Harriott did not address the authority cited by Success Academy on that issue.

The court also considered Harriott’s evidence that Morales said part-time teachers were not eligible for the position, failed to disclose some of Harriott’s accomplishments, gave Beltre an application with additional questions, and allowed Beltre to apply after the deadline. The court found that this evidence was insufficient to overcome the difficulty created by the promotion of other African American employees. It also ruled that part of Harriott’s evidence concerning a statement that he was not a “model teacher” was inadmissible hearsay. Even assuming that statement could be considered, the court found that Harriott still could not show that Success Academy’s stated reasons—concerns about his abrasiveness and his ability to navigate relationships with coworkers—were a pretext for race discrimination.

The court applied the New York City Human Rights Law’s broader standard separately. That law requires a plaintiff to show that the employer treated him less well, at least in part, because of a discriminatory motive. The court nevertheless found that Harriott’s admissible evidence did not show a discriminatory motive. It therefore granted summary judgment on his New York City Human Rights Law discrimination claim as well.

Retaliation Claims

The parties agreed that Harriott’s October 2019 complaint about racial discrimination was protected activity. The court nevertheless held that his retaliation claims failed for several independent reasons.

First, the court found that the proposed transfer did not qualify as an adverse employment action under § 1981 or the New York State Human Rights Law because Harriott did not show a materially adverse change in his employment. The court also found that the proposed transfer did not meet the broader New York City Human Rights Law standard, which asks whether the action would be reasonably likely to discourage a person from making a discrimination complaint. The court explained that Success Academy offered Harriott a different school after he objected to the first one, and that the longer commute and change from an approximately 85-percent schedule to full-time work were not enough under the circumstances.

Second, the court found no causal connection between Harriott’s complaint and the proposed transfer. Seven months separated the complaint and the transfer decision, which Harriott conceded was not sufficiently close in time by itself. The court also found no evidence that Morales or Darren Sam, whom Harriott claimed had threatened to transfer him, was involved in the transfer decision or that a decisionmaker acted with retaliatory intent.

Third, the court held that Harriott did not show that Success Academy’s stated reasons for the transfer were pretextual. Harriott did not address those reasons in his opposition to summary judgment. The court therefore concluded that he had not met his burden under the burden-shifting framework.

Disposition

Judge Ramos granted Success Academy’s motion for summary judgment. The ruling covered all of Harriott’s remaining race-discrimination and retaliation claims under § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.