Zeng v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

Xiamin Zeng sued her employer, the New York City Housing Authority, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged race- and gender-based discrimination, discrimination based on her status as a domestic-abuse survivor, a hostile work environment, and retaliation for reporting discrimination. The Housing Authority denied discriminating against her and asserted that it terminated her because of poor performance and insubordination.

Zeng worked as a probationary caretaker from July 28, 2016, until her termination on May 12, 2017. She worked at three Housing Authority developments and alleged that supervisors and coworkers made racist and sexist comments, treated her worse than non-Asian coworkers, denied or discouraged requests for time off, and assigned her undesirable or excessive work. The record also included six counseling memoranda concerning alleged performance problems and insubordination. The Housing Authority offered Zeng several alternative work locations after she raised safety concerns related to her abusive former partner, but she did not accept those placements.

Federal discrimination and termination claims

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used for Title VII and Section 1981 discrimination claims. The Housing Authority offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination—Zeng’s poor performance and insubordination. The court held that Zeng did not produce sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that this reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason for the termination. Her initial satisfactory evaluation, disagreement with later evaluations, and allegations that supervisors fabricated disciplinary reasons did not create a triable issue of fact.

The court also concluded that the alleged racist and sexist comments and other treatment did not establish a hostile work environment under Title VII or Section 1981. The court considered the four alleged slurs and the other alleged unequal treatment but found insufficient evidence that the conduct was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment. It also relied on record evidence contradicting or failing to support several allegations, including the claims about working longer hours, lack of a winter coat, and denied leave for court hearings.

Retaliation claims

The court held that Zeng’s retaliation claims failed because she did not establish a causal connection between protected complaints and her termination. The court found no record evidence of several alleged informal complaints and determined that, even assuming they occurred, they were too remote from the termination. Zeng’s formal complaint to the Housing Authority’s Equal Opportunity Department occurred after the performance and insubordination events that supported the termination. The court further held that Zeng did not show that retaliation, rather than poor performance and insubordination, was a substantial reason for the termination.

Disposition

The court granted the Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment on Zeng’s Title VII and Section 1981 claims. Because it granted judgment on the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York City Human Rights Law claims. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the Housing Authority, terminate the motion, and mark the case closed.