Bautista v. Chanel, Inc.

Background

Miguel Bautista sued Chanel, Inc., and Julie Papaioannou, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Bautista alleged that Chanel and Papaioannou discriminated against him because of his race and national origin and retaliated after he complained about discrimination. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is appropriate only when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Bautista worked for Chanel from May 2015 through January 17, 2019, at its Saks Fifth Avenue boutique. Papaioannou supervised him from September 2016 through January 2019. The record included evidence that Papaioannou asked Bautista “Comprende?” in a condescending tone while giving him work instructions. It also showed three investigations into alleged sales-policy violations in 2017 and 2018; later investigations determined that Bautista had not violated the policies in those incidents.

In February 2018, Papaioannou told Bautista and two other employees not to speak Spanish at the counter unless they were assisting a Spanish-speaking customer. Bautista complained to Human Resources, asserting that Spanish-speaking employees were treated differently from employees who spoke French or Chinese. Human Resources concluded that four Spanish-speaking employees had been told not to speak Spanish and that the instruction had not been communicated appropriately. Chanel did not have a corporate English-only policy.

In November 2018, Papaioannou accused Bautista of entering a sale under his employee number even though a freelance makeup artist had applied the customer’s makeup. Bautista said he had assisted the customer, recommended a product, and had prior contact with her. After an investigation, Chanel terminated Bautista’s employment in January 2019. The record included notes stating that Papaioannou felt relieved by the termination and had wanted it from the beginning. The opinion states that neither side claimed Chanel terminated Bautista because of his work performance.

Title VII Discrimination

The court held that the evidence could allow a reasonable jury to find discriminatory intent. The evidence included Papaioannou’s “Comprende?” comment, the three investigations that did not uncover violations, the instruction not to speak Spanish, and Bautista’s testimony that employees speaking French and Chinese were not similarly admonished. Viewed together, the evidence was sufficient even though the comment and the termination were separated in time.

The defendants offered a nondiscriminatory reason for the termination: they determined that Bautista had lied about his prior contact with the customer involved in the November 2018 sale. The court found a factual dispute about whether that reason had a reasonable basis because Bautista testified that he had assisted the customer, Papaioannou acknowledged that he appeared to have helped her several times, and the investigation did not examine whether Bautista had contacted the customer before the sale. The evidence also could support an inference that discrimination was at least one motivating factor in the termination. The motion for summary judgment was denied as to the Title VII discrimination claim.

Title VII Retaliation

The court also denied summary judgment on Bautista’s Title VII retaliation claim. Bautista’s February 2018 discrimination complaint was protected activity, and his termination was an adverse employment action. The court found sufficient evidence of a causal connection because, in August 2018, Papaioannou referred to the earlier dispute in an email about another employee’s “Spanish not welcome” social-media comment and said she remained distressed by the allegations. The timing and context could allow a reasonable jury to find that retaliation was at least partly a reason for Bautista’s termination.

New York City Human Rights Law Claims

The court held that Bautista’s NYCHRL discrimination and retaliation claims also survived summary judgment. The NYCHRL uses broader standards than Title VII. On the evidence viewed in Bautista’s favor, a reasonable jury could find that the defendants treated him less well because of discriminatory animus and that the conduct was retaliation for opposing discrimination.

The court separately addressed direct liability for Papaioannou under the NYCHRL. Because Papaioannou allegedly participated in the conduct at issue, the court held that she could be held personally liable under that law. Bautista’s NYCHRL claims against Papaioannou survived summary judgment.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 57, and the court stated that a trial scheduling order would follow.