Gamza-Machado De Souza v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.

Background

Ilana Gamza-Machado de Souza sued Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. (PPFA), Rachel Moreno, and George Walker. She alleged race and religion discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). She also asserted aiding-and-abetting claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, supervisor-liability claims under the NYCHRL, and a race-discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Plaintiff worked for PPFA from October 2019 through November 2020. She is Jewish. During 2020, she sought to create a Jewish employee resource group. The opinion describes several comments and events that Plaintiff viewed as anti-Semitic or insensitive, including comments about Jewish employees, Jewish leaders, and Orthodox Jewish women. The proposed group was not formally launched until April 2021, after Plaintiff’s employment ended.

PPFA fired Plaintiff on November 30, 2020. PPFA said at the time that her job was being eliminated and that the organization was going in a different direction. In this litigation, Defendants identified poor performance as the reason for the firing. Plaintiff disputed that explanation and pointed to the timing of negative performance feedback, her advocacy for the Jewish employee group, the lack of a performance-improvement plan, the limited documentation of performance concerns, and the posting of a similar position after her firing.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court was required to view the evidence and reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor at this stage. It was not deciding which witnesses would ultimately be believed; it was deciding whether a reasonable jury could rule for Plaintiff.

Title VII claims

The court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Title VII hostile-work-environment claim. A hostile-work-environment claim requires conduct that is objectively severe or pervasive, subjectively experienced as hostile or abusive, and connected to a protected characteristic. The court concluded that the comments, holiday-related issues, resistance to the Jewish employee resource group, and Plaintiff’s generalized testimony about Moreno’s bullying were not sufficiently severe or pervasive, considered separately or together.

The court denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Title VII claim that she was fired because she is Jewish. PPFA offered poor performance as a nondiscriminatory reason for the firing. However, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that performance was not the only reason and that race or religion was a motivating factor. The timing of Moreno’s first written criticism, the defendants’ reactions to Plaintiff’s advocacy, Moreno’s comment about an “old Jewish woman,” the lack of a performance-improvement plan, the limited documentation, and potentially shifting explanations for the firing could support an inference of discrimination.

The court also denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim based on her firing. It granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim to the extent it was based on a hostile work environment, because Plaintiff had not shown that a qualifying hostile work environment existed or that the alleged conduct followed from her protected activity in the required way. The firing claim could proceed because a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff was fired for complaining about anti-Semitism and promoting a Jewish employee resource group.

New York State and New York City claims

The court denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination claims against PPFA. Unlike Title VII, the state and city laws apply more protective standards to hostile-work-environment claims. Under those standards, a plaintiff need only show that she was treated less well because of a protected characteristic. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff was treated less well because she is Jewish, including based on comments suggesting that Jewish people should not hold certain positions of power.

The court denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination claims based on her firing. Those claims survived for the same reasons as the Title VII firing claim. The court also denied summary judgment on the state and city retaliation claims based on the firing.

The court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL retaliation claims to the extent they were based on a hostile work environment. The court found no evidence of the required causal connection between Plaintiff’s protected activity and conduct that would reasonably be likely to deter someone from engaging in that activity.

Individual defendants and Section 1981

The court denied Moreno’s motion for summary judgment on the surviving NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. Moreno had unilateral authority to terminate Plaintiff and was directly responsible for the firing and at least one key incident underlying the hostile-work-environment claim.

The court granted Walker summary judgment on all claims against him and dismissed him from the case. The record did not show that Walker participated in Plaintiff’s firing or that his comments and actions created a hostile work environment actionable under the state or city laws.

The court applied the same standards to Plaintiff’s Section 1981 claims as it applied to her Title VII claims. It therefore granted in part and denied in part PPFA’s motion on those claims to the same extent as its Title VII motion. The court granted Walker summary judgment and denied Moreno summary judgment on the surviving Section 1981 claims for the reasons discussed in the opinion.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It granted the motion on all Title VII and Section 1981 claims based on a hostile work environment, on all claims against Walker individually, and on the NYSHRL and NYCHRL retaliation claims to the extent they were based on a hostile work environment. The surviving claims include federal discrimination and retaliation claims based on Plaintiff’s firing, Section 1981 claims against PPFA and Moreno based on the firing, and NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination and retaliation claims against PPFA and Moreno as specified in the court’s conclusion. Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.