Brand v. New Rochelle City School District

Background

Susan B. Brand, a white teacher employed by the New Rochelle City School District, sued the District, Joseph Williams, Kimmerly Nieves, and Ural Hogans. She alleged race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the federal employment-discrimination law and the New York State Human Rights Law. Her amended complaint also asserted defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Brand’s allegations arose largely from events following a disagreement with Hogans about whether a student was missing an after-school academic program to attend basketball practice. At a March 22, 2019 meeting, Hogans said he believed Brand treated him differently because of his race or sex. Brand later complained to the District. She claimed that Nieves and others then ignored or criticized her, excluded her from meetings or professional opportunities, favored other teachers, and generated or repeated negative information about her. Brand remained employed as a tenured fifth-grade teacher, received positive evaluations, kept the same benefits, and received a salary increase after the events at issue.

Discrimination claim

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used for Title VII discrimination claims. It held that Brand failed to show a materially adverse employment action. The alleged denial of DreamBox training was not shown to have caused material harm, such as lost promotion or career advancement. Exclusion from an unpaid, voluntary hiring committee likewise did not materially change her employment or professional opportunities. Brand also did not explain how competition for the voluntary union-representative position materially affected her employment.

The court further held that Brand did not provide evidence supporting an inference that these actions occurred because of her race. Her argument largely relied on the fact that she is white and had been labeled a racist, which the court found insufficient. The court therefore granted summary judgment to defendants on the discrimination claim.

Retaliation claim

The court also granted summary judgment on Brand’s retaliation claim. Title VII retaliation requires a materially adverse action—one that could dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a discrimination complaint—and a causal connection between the protected complaint and the alleged action.

The court found that Brand’s continued complaints after her March 27, 2019 District complaint suggested that the alleged conduct had not dissuaded her from reporting discrimination or retaliation. It characterized the alleged criticism, favoritism, snubbing, exclusion from meetings, denial of training or committee participation, and similar conduct as petty slights or minor workplace annoyances. Even assuming that Nieves fabricated or repeated negative complaints, the court found no evidence that she did so because Brand had complained. The court also noted that Brand described hostility as existing for years, including before her protected complaint, undermining a causal connection.

State-law claims and disposition

After resolving the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state claims—over Brand’s remaining state-law causes of action. It dismissed those claims without prejudice.

The court’s conclusion states that defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted, the federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the state claims were dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.