Santiago v. Axis Specialty US Services, Inc.

Background

Carmen Santiago, a Hispanic woman, worked for AXIS Specialty U.S. Services, Inc. as a Senior Underwriting Assistant from 2003 until AXIS terminated her employment in 2017. She claimed that AXIS failed to provide training for discriminatory reasons after a restructuring changed the substantive work expected of her, and that the resulting performance problems led to her termination. She brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also named Kimberly Robinson, William Glastal, LaTrelle McKellar, and Tim Madderom as individual defendants.

AXIS moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence requires a trial or instead requires judgment as a matter of law. The court considered Santiago’s claims concerning failure to train, termination, and discrimination under federal, state, and city law.

Failure-to-Train Claim

Santiago relied on two training incidents. First, AXIS sent Aaron Moore, a Black male who had transferred from another department, to a training program in Alpharetta, Georgia, but did not invite Santiago. Second, Santiago attended one day of a March 2017 training, missed two later days because she was sick, and was not offered make-up sessions.

The court held that Santiago had shown a trial-worthy question about whether the failure to train was an adverse employment action, meaning a materially harmful change in employment. She showed that AXIS provided training to another employee while excluding her, and she presented evidence connecting the lack of knowledge from inadequate training to her eventual termination.

The court nevertheless held that Santiago did not present enough evidence to support an inference that AXIS acted because of her race or national origin. Santiago acknowledged that no one at AXIS made discriminatory statements about her race or ethnicity, and the record contained no ethnically degrading or discriminatory comments. The court found that Moore was not a valid comparator because he was new to the U.S. Excess Casualty department and received training because of that transfer, while Santiago had worked in the department for thirteen years. The court also noted that other employees, including Rosenking and Brown, did not receive the Alpharetta training, and that Rosenking was not offered a make-up session after missing part of the March training. Thus, the evidence did not show race-based unequal treatment.

Termination Claim

The court separately considered Santiago’s claim that her termination was discriminatory. It held that she offered no evidence, beyond her Hispanic identity and termination, supporting a discriminatory motive. The record showed that AXIS warned her about performance problems, provided daily assistance, placed her on a performance improvement plan, and continued to receive reports of errors affecting Glastal’s work and business relationships.

The court held that poor performance was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination. Santiago did not show that this reason was pretext, meaning a false explanation covering discriminatory intent. Her earlier performance reviews did not establish pretext because, before the restructuring, she had not been required to perform the same substantive duties that later generated the performance criticisms. The court also found that her arguments about missed training and meetings with Haustman did not show that the stated reason for termination was false.

Failure-to-Promote Argument

Santiago raised a failure-to-promote argument for the first time in her opposition to summary judgment. The court held that she had not included that claim in her charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and had not included it in her complaint. The court therefore held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the argument.

Claims Under City and State Law

The court applied the same general burden-shifting framework to the New York State Human Rights Law claims and separately considered the broader standards under the New York City Human Rights Law. It held that Santiago still needed to present some evidence of discriminatory motive under the city law. Because she presented no discriminatory comments, incidents, or evidence of disparate treatment, the court held that her city-law claim could not proceed. The state and city claims against the individual defendants also failed because the employer itself was not shown liable under those laws, and individual liability was therefore unavailable on this record.

Disposition

The court held that Title VII does not impose individual liability on the named supervisors and coworkers. It granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was directed to close the motion and the case and to mail Santiago a copy of the order and notice of the right to appeal.