Perez v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Background

Lourdes Perez, a Hispanic woman, worked as a Port Authority police officer beginning in 2002. She sought promotion to sergeant three times, including in 2018. After passing the written examination, she participated in a qualifications review meeting, or QRM, conducted by a three-member panel. The panel rated her "Needs Development," which automatically prevented the Promotion Review Board from recommending her to the Superintendent for promotion.

Perez filed a complaint with the Port Authority’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office on October 4, 2018, alleging that race and gender discrimination caused the denial of her promotion. She later alleged that defendants retaliated against her through five incidents: changing her overtime post for one day, asking where she was during a preapproved break, assigning her a police report, signing her police memo book, and directing a supervisor to discuss a work mistake with her. Perez also alleged that these events and the failure to promote her created a hostile work environment.

She brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Port Authority and the supervisors moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute of an important fact requires a jury’s decision and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Claims Not Addressed in Opposition

Perez’s opposition to summary judgment did not mention or defend her claims under Section 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, or the New York City Human Rights Law. The court therefore treated those claims as abandoned, including all claims against the individual defendants, and analyzed the remaining Title VII claims.

Title VII Discrimination

The court applied the three-step framework used for employment-discrimination claims. It concluded that Perez could not establish the required initial showing of discrimination. The evidence indicated that the QRM panel rated her based on her answers to standard questions and a grading rubric, and Perez offered no supporting evidence beyond her subjective assessment and conclusory assertions that the panel was biased.

The court also found no circumstances supporting an inference of discriminatory intent. The fact that the three panelists were white men, and that the candidate rated higher was a white man, was insufficient without evidence about the candidate’s qualifications or comparable treatment. In addition, the Port Authority gave a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not promoting Perez—her QRM performance—and Perez presented no evidence that this explanation was false or that the QRM evaluation was unfair. The court therefore held that her discrimination claim failed.

Title VII Retaliation

The court held that Perez’s retaliation claim failed for at least three independent reasons. First, the five alleged incidents were petty slights or minor annoyances rather than actions that could dissuade a reasonable worker from reporting discrimination. Second, Perez did not provide admissible evidence that Pomerantz knew about her October 4, 2018 complaint when the alleged retaliatory actions occurred. The opinion states that Pomerantz testified he learned of the complaint in April 2019, while the EEO investigator testified that he learned of it no earlier than November 2018.

Third, even assuming Perez could establish an initial retaliation case, the Port Authority offered legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for each action, and Perez did not show that the actions would not have occurred without a retaliatory motive. The court held that the timing of the incidents alone was not enough to defeat summary judgment.

Hostile Work Environment

The court rejected Perez’s hostile-work-environment claim. It explained that Title VII requires workplace conduct to be sufficiently severe, pervasive, continuous, and connected to a protected characteristic to alter the conditions of employment. Perez relied on the same facts underlying her discrimination and retaliation claims, but those discrete events could not be repackaged as a hostile-work-environment claim. In any event, the five incidents were not sufficiently continuous and concerted to meet the legal standard.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Perez’s claims in their entirety. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment consistent with the opinion, terminate the motion, and close the case. The opinion also states that an exhibit containing Perez’s QRM grading sheets would remain under seal.