Emanuel v. Gap, Inc.

Background

Desa Emanuel and Lacrena Taylor brought claims against Gap, Inc., Banana Republic, LLC, Michelle Russo, Gregoire Jean-Louis, and Toni Lynn Borowski. The complaint asserted discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law; aiding and abetting; and defamation. Emanuel was hired in March 2009, Taylor was hired in June 2017, and both were terminated in March 2018. Each alleged that the termination was based on race and retaliation for engaging in protected activity.

The defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on all claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the record shows that no genuine dispute over a material fact requires a trial. The defendants argued primarily that the plaintiffs could not establish an initial case of discrimination, that legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons supported the terminations, and that the plaintiffs could not show the required connection between protected activity and termination for their retaliation claims.

Why the Court Denied the Motion

The court held that the parties’ submissions made the motion unworkable. The evidentiary materials included extensive objections and responses that did not properly apply the summary-judgment standard. The court explained that only evidence that could be presented in admissible form at trial may be considered, but that evidence does not necessarily need to be submitted in trial-ready form at the summary-judgment stage. The court criticized objections that treated ordinary hearsay concerns as grounds for line-by-line challenges without addressing whether the declarants could testify or whether an exception applied.

The court also found that the parties’ Local Civil Rule 56.1 statements failed to provide a short, usable account of the material facts. Those statements are intended to identify facts that matter to the claims and defenses, supported by evidence, and to identify genuine disputes about those facts. Instead, the submissions included irrelevant or argumentative material, unauthorized objections, a separate counterstatement, and an unauthorized 31-page reply by the defendants. The court also noted that the submissions failed to establish some basic undisputed facts, including the plaintiffs’ race, termination dates, and job responsibilities.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice. The ruling did not resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or the defendants’ defenses. If the defendants chose to refile, the parties were required to meet and confer, address what evidence could be presented at trial, and file by August 29, 2022, a single compliant Rule 56.1 statement containing the plaintiffs’ responses and counterstatement, as appropriate, and the defendants’ responses. The court said it would set an expedited briefing schedule after a compliant statement was filed. If the statement failed to comply with the governing rules, permission to file a substitute motion would be denied. If the defendants did not refile, the parties were directed to proceed with required pretrial filings by September 30, 2022. Judge Halpern also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion sequence.