DeGroat v. Sullivan County

Background

Danielle Marie DeGroat sued Sullivan County, Sullivan County Adult Care Center (SCACC), and Susan Southerton. She alleged race and disability discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL).

The County hired DeGroat as a certified nursing assistant in April 2019. Defendants said she resigned in August 2020, while DeGroat characterized her departure as a firing. She was rehired in April 2022. In October 2022, SCACC informed her that she had been absent without authorization and deemed her to have resigned. DeGroat again contended that she had been fired. She later filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received permission to sue.

Rulings on the Claims

The court granted summary judgment, meaning judgment without a trial, on all claims.

Race discrimination under Title VII and the NYSHRL. Defendants identified unauthorized absences as their legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the October 2022 employment action. The court found that DeGroat did not respond to the argument that this reason was a pretext, or cover, for discrimination. The court also found no admissible evidence connecting the employment action to racial discrimination. Although DeGroat testified that white certified nursing assistants had unauthorized absences, she did not provide evidence showing that those employees were treated differently in materially similar circumstances. The court granted the Motion on these claims.

Retaliation under Title VII and the NYSHRL. DeGroat argued that she was retaliated against after testifying at an August 2020 hearing concerning workplace discrimination. The court held that she did not establish that she engaged in legally protected activity because the record lacked admissible evidence describing that activity. The court therefore granted summary judgment on these claims.

Municipal liability under Section 1983. A municipal-liability claim requires evidence that an official policy or custom caused the alleged violation. The court found that DeGroat provided no record evidence supporting any required element, including a County policy, custom, or practice. The court granted summary judgment on this claim.

Aiding and abetting under the NYSHRL. The court explained that this claim requires an underlying violation of the NYSHRL by an employer or principal. Because the court found no successful underlying NYSHRL claim, it granted the Motion on the aiding-and-abetting claim.

Failure to accommodate under the ADA and the NYSHRL. The court recognized that DeGroat’s bipolar disorder qualified as a disability under the ADA and assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that SCACC was a covered employer. But DeGroat provided no evidence that she could perform her job with a reasonable accommodation or that SCACC refused to provide one. The court granted summary judgment on these claims.

Retaliation under the ADA. The court found that DeGroat did not identify an activity protected by the ADA and did not address this claim in her opposition brief. The court granted summary judgment on the ADA retaliation claim.

Section 1981 claims and SCACC. The court stated that, to the extent DeGroat asserted race-discrimination or retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, those claims were dismissed for the reasons supporting judgment on the Title VII and NYSHRL claims. The court also concluded that SCACC was an administrative arm of Sullivan County rather than a separate legal entity capable of being sued. It dismissed all claims against SCACC with prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion, enter judgment for Defendants, and close the case.