Johnson v. L'Oreal USA

Background

Amanda Johnson sued L’Oréal USA, her former employer, alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law; disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and associational discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York law; and claims under the New York City Human Rights Law. Johnson is African American and alleged that L’Oréal fired her because of her race, depression and anxiety, her relationship with her disabled sister, and her opposition to discriminatory conduct.

L’Oréal moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to decide claims without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the outcome. The record included complaints about Johnson’s absences, management style, communication, and interactions with coworkers. It also included threatening or aggressive text messages and offensive social-media posts. L’Oréal terminated Johnson on June 19, 2018, citing communication problems, inappropriate behavior, and time away from the office.

Race-discrimination claims

The court granted summary judgment for L’Oréal on Johnson’s race-discrimination claims under Title VII, § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The court assumed, without deciding, that Johnson had established the initial requirements for a discrimination claim. It held, however, that L’Oréal had provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination, including threatening messages, social-media posts, repeated complaints about Johnson’s workplace conduct and performance, and her low leadership-survey score.

The court found that Johnson had not produced enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that those reasons were a pretext, meaning a false explanation hiding unlawful discrimination. The court rejected her reliance on alleged race-related comments by coworkers, concluding that the comments were not made by decision-makers or connected to the termination. It also found that the non-African American employees Johnson identified as comparators had not been shown to have engaged in the same misconduct, including threatening messages and offensive posts.

Disability claims

The court granted summary judgment for L’Oréal on Johnson’s disability-discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York State law. L’Oréal did not dispute that Johnson’s depression qualified as a disability under the ADA, but argued that it fired her for misconduct and performance problems rather than because of her depression. The court held that even if depression contributed to Johnson’s conduct, disability law did not prevent L’Oréal from terminating her for workplace misconduct.

The court also rejected Johnson’s claim that L’Oréal failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. It found that Human Resources and supervisors discussed her well-being, offered resources, discussed possible assistance and time off, scheduled follow-up discussions, and responded to her statements about working with a doctor. Johnson did not request additional help or a specific accommodation and did not use the resources provided, according to the court.

The court likewise rejected Johnson’s claim that L’Oréal discriminated against her because she needed time off to care for her disabled sister. The court found that this claim rested on speculation and that the record instead showed L’Oréal provided support and information related to her sister.

Retaliation claims

The court granted summary judgment for L’Oréal on Johnson’s retaliation claims under Title VII, § 1981, and New York State law. Johnson relied primarily on a June 6, 2018 message to Bethelmy-Rada complaining that coworker Nicolas Krafft had acted in a sexist and intolerant manner. The court assumed that the message could constitute protected activity but found no reasonable basis to conclude that L’Oréal fired Johnson because of it.

The court emphasized that L’Oréal had not decided to fire Johnson immediately after the message. Instead, the decision followed the later sharing of Johnson’s threatening text messages and social-media posts, after which L’Oréal managers and in-house counsel concluded that she should be terminated. The court therefore found no evidence that the stated reasons for termination were a cover for retaliation.

New York City Human Rights Law claims and disposition

The court explained that the New York City Human Rights Law generally provides a broader standard for discrimination claims than federal and New York State law. After granting summary judgment on the claims over which it had original jurisdiction and on the state-law claims applying the same standards, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Johnson’s NYCHRL claims. It dismissed those claims without prejudice to filing them in state court.

The order states that L’Oréal’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part. All of Johnson’s claims other than the NYCHRL claims were dismissed with prejudice. The NYCHRL claims were dismissed without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.