Forbes v. Tri-County Care, LLC.

Background

Tina Forbes sued Tri-County Care, LLC and Japhe Deliat under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged that Tri-County discriminated against her because she was pregnant and terminated her after she complained to human resources about Deliat’s conduct after learning of her pregnancy. Forbes also asserted retaliation claims. She voluntarily withdrew an aiding-and-abetting claim against Deliat in her opposition to summary judgment.

Forbes worked as a Training Specialist from March 25, 2019, until February 20, 2020. The court described evidence of performance concerns, including an extended probationary period and later concerns that she was not meeting the position’s expectations. On February 12 and 13, 2020, managers discussed her performance, a possible move to a care-manager role, and restructuring the Training and Education Department. On February 13, the decisionmakers concluded that one Training Specialist position would be eliminated and selected Forbes’s position for elimination.

Forbes told human-resources personnel and Deliat that she was pregnant on February 17, 2020. She declined the offered care-manager position. On February 19, Deliat informed management that she had rejected the position, and on February 21 Tri-County terminated her employment, stating that the department was being restructured. The court found no evidence that the relevant decisionmakers knew of Forbes’s pregnancy when they decided to eliminate her position. Tri-County did not fill the eliminated position.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, but that party must identify admissible evidence supporting a trial-worthy dispute rather than rely on pleadings, conclusory statements, or speculation.

Discrimination claims

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used for Title VII discrimination claims. Under that framework, a plaintiff must first make an initial showing of discrimination. The employer may then provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, after which the plaintiff must present evidence that the reason was a pretext for discrimination.

The court concluded that Forbes could show she was pregnant and had suffered an adverse employment action because she was terminated. It also determined that a reasonable jury could find her minimally qualified for the Training Specialist position, even though the record contained performance concerns. But Forbes did not provide the minimal evidence needed to support an inference that the termination decision was motivated by pregnancy discrimination. In particular, the relevant decisionmakers made the decision to eliminate her position before learning of her pregnancy. The court therefore ruled against her Title VII discrimination claim.

The court reached the same result on Forbes’s New York State Human Rights Law discrimination claim. Although the state-law standard was more favorable to plaintiffs after a 2019 amendment, Forbes still had to show that she was treated less well because of discriminatory intent. The court concluded that she had not made that showing.

Retaliation claims

Forbes claimed that her termination was retaliation for reporting Deliat’s questions and reaction after she disclosed her pregnancy. The court held that the retaliation claims failed for substantially the same reason as the discrimination claims: the termination decision was made before the relevant decisionmakers knew about her pregnancy or her complaint.

The court also held that Forbes had not exhausted her administrative remedies for her Title VII retaliation claim. Her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge did not mention retaliation or say that she had complained, and the court found that the retaliation theory was not reasonably related to the discrimination charge. The court further stated that, even if the claim had been properly exhausted, Forbes had not shown a causal connection between her complaint and the termination.

The court applied the more liberal standard governing the state-law retaliation claim but reached the same conclusion. Forbes had not shown that her termination was caused, even in part, by a retaliatory motive.

Disposition

The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It directed the Clerk of Court to vacate the prior judgment, issue a new judgment consistent with the opinion, and close the case.