Streichert v. Town of Chester, New York

Background

Loretta Streichert sued the Town of Chester, New York; former Town Supervisor Alex Jamieson; Town Supervisor Robert Valentine; and Town Board Members Cynthia Smith and Ryan C. Wensley. She brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state or local officials for violations of constitutional rights. She alleged intentional gender discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Streichert alleged two forms of discrimination. First, she claimed that the defendants failed to give her the title and compensation she deserved compared with Walter Popailo, a male employee. Second, she claimed that the Town chose Popailo, whom she considered less qualified, instead of her for the Recreation Director position at the Sugar Loaf Performing Arts Center.

Streichert worked for the Town from 2006 until she resigned in June 2019. After the Parks and Recreation Department was divided in 2017, she ran the Recreation Department. Her title was changed from Recreation Coordinator to Recreation Director in 2018, but she remained an hourly employee. In 2019, both Streichert and Popailo applied for the Performing Arts Center position, and Popailo was selected.

Timeliness

The court explained that employment-discrimination claims under § 1983 generally have a three-year limitations period. Because Streichert filed her complaint on July 31, 2019, events before July 31, 2016, could not support timely claims. The court considered those older events only as background evidence and dismissed as untimely claims based on events occurring before that date. The court also concluded that the unequal-pay theory based on Popailo’s allegedly accelerated pay increases was untimely because the relevant increase occurred in January 2016.

Title-and-Pay Claim

The court held that Streichert could not establish the required initial showing of gender discrimination for her claim based on title and pay. Her requested title change was eventually granted, and she received annual pay increases in 2017 and 2018, although she did not receive the additional increase she requested in 2018 and was not converted to a salaried position.

The court further held that Streichert had not identified a similarly situated male employee who received more favorable treatment. Popailo had directed both the Parks and Recreation Departments and performed physical maintenance and upkeep work, while Streichert directed only the Recreation Department and did not perform those physical-labor duties. Taggart, who ran the Parks/Grounds and Maintenance Department, was also paid less than Streichert and did not receive more favorable treatment regarding title or salary. The court therefore found no sufficient basis to infer gender discrimination from the title-and-pay allegations.

The court also rejected allegations concerning Kristofer Grohl and Taggart receiving full pay upon hire. It stated that Streichert offered no evidence, other than a complaint allegation, that Grohl received full pay upon hire, and that Taggart and Grohl had substantially different titles, duties, and responsibilities. The court noted that Streichert’s salary was higher than both Taggart’s and Grohl’s salaries.

Failure-to-Promote Claim

The court assumed that Streichert satisfied the first three parts of the initial discrimination showing for the failure-to-promote claim: she was in a protected class, was qualified for the position, and suffered an adverse employment action when she was not selected. The court focused on whether the circumstances supported an inference of discrimination.

The defendants offered Popailo’s experience running a comedy club and performing maintenance and upkeep work as legitimate reasons for selecting him. Streichert had more limited entertainment experience and no experience performing physical labor to maintain the Town’s facilities and parks. The court stated that the Town’s assessment of the candidates’ qualifications, by itself, did not support an inference of discrimination.

However, the court found that Streichert presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the stated reasons were pretextual, meaning they were a cover for unlawful discrimination. The evidence included testimony that Popailo had previously been terminated after allegedly making racist and sexist comments, including using racial slurs and curse words at an Association of Towns conference. The court therefore found a genuine dispute of material fact about whether the Town’s decision to select Popailo was pretextual. It denied summary judgment on the failure-to-promote claim.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The motion was granted on all claims except Streichert’s failure-to-promote claim. The court also stated that, because the failure-to-promote claim survived summary judgment, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim at that stage. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion.