Tillman v. McDonough
- Subramanian
- 1:23-cv-10421
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tillman v. McDonough, Judge Subramanian denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion because factual disputes require a bench trial.
The ruling allows Inez Tillman’s alleged retaliation claim to proceed toward a bench trial and prevents the defendants from obtaining summary judgment at this stage.
What happened
In Tillman v. McDonough, pro se plaintiff Inez Tillman alleges that the Government retaliated against her as a Department of Veteran Affairs employee after she reported racist practices at a Veterans Affairs clinic.
The defendants asked the court to grant summary judgment, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support a retaliation claim. The court found that the parties’ submissions raised genuine disputes about important facts, including issues that could depend on Tillman’s testimony and the credibility of witnesses.
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, without prejudice to presenting the disputed issues at trial. Because neither side requested a jury, the court will decide the facts at a two-day bench trial, and the parties were directed to propose dates.
The detailed version
- Tillman v. McDonough · No. 1:23-cv-10421
- Subramanian
- May 6, 2025
Background
Pro se plaintiff Inez Tillman sued Denis R. McDonough, in his capacity as Secretary of Veteran Affairs, alleging that the Government unlawfully retaliated against her as an employee of the Department of Veteran Affairs after she reported racist practices in a Veterans Affairs clinic.
Motion and legal standard
The defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The defendants argued that the evidence did not support a prima facie case of retaliation, meaning enough initial evidence to support the claim.
The court explained that summary judgment should be denied if, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor, a reasonable factfinder could resolve material factual issues for that party. The court also noted that special consideration is ordinarily given to people representing themselves, especially in summary-judgment proceedings.
Ruling
The court reviewed the parties’ submissions and found genuine disputes of material fact. It stated that retaliation cases may depend on the plaintiff’s testimony and on assessing witnesses’ credibility at trial. Neither side had invoked the right to a jury trial, so the court would decide those issues itself as the factfinder.
The court held that summary judgment in favor of the defendants was inappropriate. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was DENIED, without prejudice to the presentation of the issues raised at trial. The parties were directed to meet and confer and propose mutually agreeable dates by May 12, 2025, for a two-day bench trial within the following six months. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 46.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.