Jean-Pierre v. Citizen Watch Company of America, Inc.

Background

Carline Jean-Pierre sued Citizen Watch Company of America, Inc., doing business as Bulova, and Gregory Thumm, Glenn Parker, Susan Chandler, and John Huggard. She alleged race- and gender-based discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also alleged a hostile work environment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Jean-Pierre, who is African American, began working at Bulova in 2011 and was terminated effective March 20, 2017. The defendants said the termination resulted from Chandler’s effort to reduce her department’s budget by approximately $300,000 and reduce headcount after the Bulova-Citizen merger. Jean-Pierre relied on various events, including denied or delayed workplace benefits and accommodations, denied promotions, changes to her responsibilities, workplace comments and conduct, and the termination itself.

Discrimination Claims

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used for employment-discrimination claims. It concluded that Jean-Pierre had established only that her termination could qualify as an adverse employment action, meaning a materially harmful change in employment conditions. The court found that the other alleged events—including the denial of bereavement leave, the two-week delay in providing an office chair, restrictions on working from home, the alleged promotion denials, changes in job responsibilities, comments by supervisors and coworkers, and the keeping of performance notes—did not qualify as materially adverse actions or were unsupported, untimely, or abandoned.

The court also held that Jean-Pierre had not produced evidence creating a reasonable inference that her termination was caused by race or gender discrimination. It found that her reliance on Chandler’s lack of prior experience hiring or supervising an African-American employee, Chandler’s termination decisions, work-from-home restrictions, restructuring decisions, and notes about Jean-Pierre did not establish discriminatory intent. The court further held that the defendants offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination, including budget reductions, the termination of other employees, and seniority considerations, and that Jean-Pierre had not shown those reasons were a pretext for discrimination.

The court applied the same result to the New York City Human Rights Law claims, explaining that Jean-Pierre had not shown that discrimination played a role in the challenged decisions. Summary judgment was therefore granted on the federal, state, and city discrimination claims.

Hostile Work Environment

The court granted summary judgment on the hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It found that the two comments by Thumm, the incident involving Neitzel, and Alessi’s conduct were isolated or minor and were not sufficiently severe or frequent to alter the conditions of Jean-Pierre’s employment or create an abusive work environment. The court also declined to give weight to an alleged racial slur that Jean-Pierre had not heard and that was raised outside the amended complaint.

Retaliation

The court granted summary judgment on the retaliation claims. It found that Jean-Pierre had not shown that she engaged in protected activity because her workplace complaints did not tell supervisors that she believed she was being treated unlawfully because of race or gender. Her separate argument that she was retaliated against for being named as a potential witness in another employee’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission demand letter was raised for the first time in opposition to summary judgment. The court nevertheless considered the argument alternatively and found no causal connection: approximately eight months separated the letter and Jean-Pierre’s termination, there was no evidence Chandler knew about the letter, and other employees named in the letter were not terminated.

Claims Against Individual Defendants and Tort Claim

The court held that individuals cannot be personally liable under Title VII and dismissed Jean-Pierre’s Title VII claims against Thumm, Parker, Chandler, and Huggard. It also dismissed her individual-capacity claims under § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law because she had not established discrimination or shown that the defendants’ stated reasons for the termination were pretextual.

The court granted summary judgment on the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim because Jean-Pierre did not respond to the defendants’ arguments on that claim and therefore abandoned it.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all of Jean-Pierre’s claims and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the open motions and close the case. The court also granted all four motions concerning sealing or redacting exhibits and directed the parties to file the requested redacted exhibits by November 25, 2019.