Nelson v. Argyropoulous

Background

Anthony B. Nelson, who was representing himself, brought an employment-discrimination action against Diane Argyropoulous, Philip Argyropoulous, Chris Orsaris, Alex Lettas, Victory Auto Group LLC, Spartan Auto Group LLC, Victory Mitsubishi, and Mitsubishi Motors North America. The claims invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The claims included race-based discrimination, age-based discrimination, retaliation, wire fraud, and identity theft.

The Victory Defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the record shows that no material factual dispute requires a trial on the relevant claim. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued a report and recommendation advising that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. He recommended granting the motion on the age-discrimination, retaliation, wire-fraud, and identity-theft claims, while denying it on the race-discrimination claims. Nelson objected to the recommended rulings on age discrimination and retaliation.

Age-Based Discrimination

Nelson argued that statements referring to him as “Bill Cosby” and “Uncle Ben,” along with references to him as an “old guy,” an “old gangster,” and a “grumpy old [man],” supported an inference of age discrimination. He also relied on an Instagram photograph tagged “Millennialsonly.”

The court reviewed these objections for clear error because they either repeated arguments previously made or could have been raised before the magistrate judge. It found no clear error in the conclusion that “Bill Cosby” and “Uncle Ben” were not, on their face, age-related. The court also agreed that the other comments were stray or isolated remarks insufficient to support an inference of age discrimination. It further concluded that the alleged isolated verbal and physical conduct was not actionable under the New York City Human Rights Law. The court therefore granted summary judgment on Nelson’s age-based discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Retaliation

The court rejected the report and recommendation’s conclusion that Nelson had not engaged in protected activity. Nelson testified that he asked Orsaris to stop calling him discriminatory names and to stop speaking to him in a discriminatory way. The court held that complaining to a superior about discriminatory language qualifies as protected activity.

The court nevertheless agreed that Nelson had not produced evidence connecting that protected activity to an adverse employment action. For federal claims and claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, the court stated that the protected activity must be the “but-for” cause of the adverse action. For the New York City Human Rights Law claim, retaliation need only have played some part in the employer’s decision. The court found no direct evidence of a connection, and Nelson had not provided a timeframe for his complaints that could establish a close timing-based connection. The court also noted Nelson’s testimony that Orsaris did not care about the complaints and simply walked away. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the retaliation claims, including the New York City Human Rights Law retaliation claim.

Race-Based Discrimination and Other Claims

The court stated that the Victory Defendants’ motion was denied as to Nelson’s race-based discrimination claims. Those claims were therefore not resolved in the Victory Defendants’ favor by this order.

The court granted the Victory Defendants’ motion as to Nelson’s wire-fraud and identity-theft claims. The order did not address the separate motion involving Mitsubishi Motors North America; the court stated that an argument concerning a joint-employer theory belonged to that other motion and was not before it in this proceeding.

Disposition

Judge Analisa Torres adopted in part and rejected in part Magistrate Judge Aaron’s report and recommendation. The court granted the Victory Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Nelson’s age-based discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law; his retaliation claims; and his wire-fraud and identity-theft claims. The court denied the motion as to his race-based discrimination claims.