Dietrich v. The City of New York

Background

Keith E. Dietrich served in the New York City Police Department for 28 years and reached the rank of Detective Second Grade. He claimed that his career stalled because of age discrimination. According to Dietrich, supervisors reassigned him from the Executive Protection Unit to the Uniform Operations Unit, gave him less desirable assignments after he returned to the Executive Protection Unit, transferred him to the Dignitary Protection Unit, failed to recommend him for promotion to Detective First Grade, and subjected him to a hostile work environment.

Dietrich brought claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. In an earlier round of the case, the court dismissed claims against the New York City Police Department, the federal age-discrimination claim against the individual defendants, and some hostile-work-environment claims. The remaining claims were against the City and certain individual officers. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence requires a trial or instead entitles one side to judgment as a matter of law.

Disparate-treatment claims

The court granted summary judgment on Dietrich’s claims that defendants treated him differently because of his age. Under the federal and state laws, Dietrich had to show that age was the “but-for” cause of the challenged action. Under the City law, he needed evidence that age was at least a motivating factor.

The court held that Dietrich’s assignments to the Uniform Operations Unit and to City Hall were not materially adverse employment actions. He kept the same rank, salary, benefits, and promotion eligibility, and he later returned to the Executive Protection Unit. His belief that the assignments harmed his promotion prospects was speculation. The court also held that the transfer to the Dignitary Protection Unit was not materially adverse because Dietrich retained his preferred schedule, salary, and benefits. In addition, the record did not show that the individual defendants were responsible for that transfer.

The court recognized that Dietrich established an initial case of discriminatory failure to promote. In particular, Redmond recommended younger detectives for promotion, and Redmond asked Dietrich whether he would retire if promoted. But defendants offered a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation: they viewed Dietrich as difficult, insubordinate, and not a team player. The record included evidence that he watched videos and chewed a toothpick while on duty, was described as using profanity toward supervisors, and received discipline for discourteous or insubordinate conduct.

The court concluded that Dietrich did not show that this explanation was a pretext for age discrimination. His favorable earlier evaluations did not overcome the later evidence of workplace conduct. The fact that younger detectives were promoted did not establish discrimination because Dietrich did not show that they had similar disciplinary or conduct histories. The court also found that the retirement question was aimed at determining how long Dietrich would serve in the unit, rather than at discriminating because of age. Dietrich’s account of the “hairbag” remark conflicted with his earlier deposition testimony, and the remark was second-hand, had no established connection to the promotion decision, and was insufficient by itself to show discriminatory intent.

The court reached the same result under the New York City Human Rights Law. Even under its lower “motivating factor” standard, Dietrich offered no non-speculative evidence that age played a role in the decision not to promote him.

Hostile-work-environment claims

The court also granted summary judgment on Dietrich’s hostile-work-environment claims under all three laws. Under the federal and state laws, the alleged conduct had to be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and had to occur because of age. The City law has a lower threshold, but the conduct still must amount to more than a petty slight or trivial inconvenience.

The court held that the reassignments and less desirable duties were not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, particularly because Dietrich did not provide evidence that they were motivated by age. The alleged “hairbag” comment also could not support the claims. Dietrich had described the term in his deposition as capable of referring to younger or older officers, and the alleged comment was a single second-hand remark that did not interfere with his ability to perform his job. The court concluded that the remark was insufficient under the federal and state standards and amounted, at most, to a petty slight under the City law.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The complaint was dismissed, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 88 and terminate the case.