Marquit v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Background

Jaime Marquit sued Mylan Specialty, L.P., ABC Corporations 1-10, and John Does 1-10. The opinion addresses the defendant’s objections to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox’s report and recommendation on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Judge Fox recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part.

The dispute discussed in the opinion concerns Marquit’s claim that the defendant failed to hire her for an Upper Manhattan position because of her pregnancy. The defendant argued that Marquit could not establish an initial case of pregnancy discrimination because Joe Osborne, the person with final hiring authority, did not know she was pregnant. The defendant also challenged the evidence concerning an email from Rick Zaminer, the existence of a genuine factual dispute about pretext, and whether evidence that the defendant’s stated reasons were not its real reasons could be enough to defeat summary judgment.

Court’s Analysis

Under Title VII, a failure-to-hire plaintiff must generally show that she belonged to a protected class, applied and was qualified for the position, was rejected, and that the position remained open or that the circumstances otherwise suggested unlawful discrimination. The court explained that the defendant did not dispute Marquit’s satisfaction of these elements except for the argument about the decisionmaker’s knowledge of her pregnancy.

The court rejected that argument. Although Osborne had sole authority and responsibility for hiring, the December 30, 2016 email showed that he relied on Zaminer’s recommendations and representations in deciding whom to interview. Zaminer interviewed Marquit and provided feedback to Osborne. The court therefore concluded that Zaminer participated in the hiring decision, even though he was not the final decisionmaker, and overruled the defendant’s first objection.

The parties did not dispute that the defendant offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring Marquit: her interview performance. The issue was whether that reason was a pretext, meaning a false explanation masking unlawful discrimination. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support Judge Fox’s finding of pretext and that the court could not conclude as a matter of law that the failure to hire Marquit was nondiscriminatory.

The court relied on evidence including the timing between Marquit’s disclosure of her pregnancy to Zaminer and her rejection, Zaminer’s failure to respond to three text messages despite previously responding to her messages, the defendant’s emphasis on her interview performance rather than her employment history, and the December 30 email. The court also agreed that the email was inconsistent with the defendant’s statement that Zaminer had not expressed a preference between the candidates before the interviews. In the email, Zaminer stated that he wanted to bring back Lucien Humphreys for the Upper Manhattan role. The court overruled the defendant’s second, third, and fourth objections.

Ruling

The court adopted the report and recommendation. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The opinion does not identify in its conclusion which other claims or portions of the motion were granted or denied.