Dodd v. My Sisters' Place, Inc.

Background

Marcus Andre Dodd, representing himself, sued My Sisters’ Place, Inc. (MSP), its chief executive officer Karen Cheeks-Lomax, and board members Thomas Rice and Robert R. Gheewalla. Dodd was MSP’s chief financial officer from November 9, 2020, through July 20, 2021. He alleged race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law. MSP asserted counterclaims for conversion and breach of the duty of loyalty.

Dodd, an African American man, alleged that Rice treated him more harshly than a former white chief financial officer. The alleged conduct included questions and requests for additional information about financial matters, including emails concerning MSP’s investments, a balance-sheet error, its retirement plan, and its proposed budget. On June 1, 2021, Dodd emailed Cheeks-Lomax complaining about “ongoing trauma and racism” from Rice. MSP retained an outside investigator, who reported that she found no evidence that Rice had engaged in race discrimination.

Dodd also sought to increase his annual salary from $150,000 to $175,000. Cheeks-Lomax denied the request, stating that $150,000 was the maximum salary permitted for the position under MSP’s budget. Dodd later took medical leave after being diagnosed with high blood pressure and costochondritis. MSP allowed him to remain away from work for approximately one month.

While Dodd was CFO, he used MSP’s company-linked Upwork account and $1,715 from MSP’s operating account to pay consultants to update his résumé, cover letters, and LinkedIn profile. The messages to the consultants included requests to identify nonprofit chief financial officer jobs. MSP’s policies required the chief executive officer and chief financial officer to approve consulting arrangements, and Dodd did not obtain Cheeks-Lomax’s approval. MSP terminated Dodd on July 20, 2021, citing his use of MSP funds for his professional materials. After the termination, MSP retained AlixPartners to provide financial advice about programs implemented during Dodd’s tenure.

Summary-judgment standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Although Dodd was representing himself, the court independently reviewed the factual record and required him to support his claims with evidence that could be admitted at trial.

Race-discrimination claims

The court granted summary judgment on Dodd’s race-discrimination claims under Title VII, Section 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Applying the burden-shifting framework used for discrimination claims based on indirect evidence, the court assumed without deciding that Dodd had established the initial showing required to proceed.

The court found that MSP gave legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for both challenged actions. It denied the salary increase because Dodd requested it approximately six months after starting and the budget capped the chief financial officer’s salary at $150,000. The other employees Dodd identified as comparators had worked for MSP for at least four years, so the court found they were not similarly situated in all material respects.

As to termination, the court found that using $1,715 of MSP funds to pay for materials prepared for Dodd’s anticipated job search was a legitimate reason for discharge. Dodd identified email exchanges with Rice as evidence of racial bias, but the court found that the emails did not mention race and were not derogatory in their tone, timing, or content. The court concluded that Dodd had not produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the defendants’ stated reasons were a pretext for race discrimination.

Disability-discrimination claims

The court granted summary judgment on Dodd’s disability-discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. Dodd relied on costochondritis and high blood pressure as his alleged disabilities. The court again assumed without deciding that he had made the minimal initial showing required for a disability-discrimination claim.

The court found that MSP had a legitimate reason for terminating Dodd: his unauthorized use of MSP funds to update his professional materials for a job search. Dodd pointed to no evidence that either alleged disability was the necessary cause of his termination. The court also noted that MSP had accommodated his conditions by allowing him to take approximately one month of medical leave.

Retaliation claims

The court granted summary judgment on Dodd’s retaliation claims under Title VII, Section 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Dodd identified three alleged retaliatory actions: the denial of his salary-increase request, his termination, and MSP’s retention of AlixPartners.

The court found no causal connection between the salary decision and Dodd’s complaint because MSP denied the salary increase on May 27, before Dodd sent his June 1 complaint. As to termination, the court found that the close timing between the investigation’s conclusion and the termination was not enough by itself to avoid summary judgment. Dodd also did not provide evidence that MSP’s standard disciplinary practices were applied differently or that Rice influenced the termination decision. Rice had recused himself from updates about the investigation. Finally, AlixPartners was retained after Dodd was no longer employed, so that action did not adversely affect the terms of his employment.

Hostile-work-environment claims

The court granted summary judgment on Dodd’s hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII, Section 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The court found that the workplace interactions Dodd identified consisted mainly of Rice asking questions and requesting additional work product, sometimes outside normal business hours. None explicitly referred to Dodd’s race, and Dodd presented no evidence connecting the interactions to his race.

The court also found no evidence connecting the interactions to Dodd’s disabilities. The interactions with Rice occurred before Dodd notified MSP of his medical conditions, and Cheeks-Lomax’s later requests for information about the budget did not show disability-based hostility. The court concluded that Dodd’s personal perception of discrimination, without supporting evidence, was insufficient.

MSP’s conversion counterclaim

The court granted summary judgment to MSP on its conversion counterclaim. Under New York law, conversion occurs when someone intentionally and without authority exercises control over another person’s property. The court found it undisputed that Dodd used $1,715 from MSP’s operating account to pay Upwork consultants.

The court rejected Dodd’s asserted explanation that the consultants were used for an application to speak at an upcoming conference. The messages with the consultants referred to finding other nonprofit chief financial officer jobs, and Dodd hired them after the conference’s application deadline. In addition, Dodd did not obtain the approval required by MSP’s fiscal policies. The court therefore entered judgment for MSP for $1,715.

MSP’s breach-of-loyalty counterclaim

The court also granted summary judgment to MSP on liability for its breach-of-the-duty-of-loyalty counterclaim. An employee’s duty of loyalty prohibits using the employer’s money for the employee’s own interests. The court found that Dodd used MSP funds to prepare for specific job applications, contrary to one of his primary responsibilities as chief financial officer: overseeing MSP’s fiscal policies and expenditure controls.

The court determined that the period of disloyalty ran from May 12 through June 3, 2021, the dates supported by the records showing Dodd’s solicitation and payment of the Upwork services. It calculated the portion of Dodd’s $150,000 annual salary for that period as approximately $8,654 and entered judgment for MSP in that amount. The court did not award interest or punitive damages because MSP had not adequately supported those requests.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It dismissed all of Dodd’s claims and directed the Clerk to enter judgment for MSP for $1,715 on conversion and $8,654 on breach of the duty of loyalty, totaling $10,369. The court directed that the case be closed.