Valentine v. HNTB Corporation

Background

Shaunice Valentine sued her former employer, HNTB Corporation, alleging that HNTB retaliated against her for reporting a coworker’s racially tinged treatment of people visiting HNTB’s community office. She asserted retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Valentine complained to supervisors about coworker Jule Grant’s treatment of visitors, including Grant’s interaction with a Spanish-language news reporter and Grant’s treatment of Spanish-speaking people. Valentine also complained about Grant’s treatment of employees, the office security guard, and visitors generally. HNTB later placed both Valentine and Grant on performance improvement plans. HNTB said Valentine had performance problems, an untenable relationship with Grant, and workplace conduct concerns. HNTB also cited complaints from the Port Authority and downsizing related to the JFK Project. HNTB terminated Valentine’s employment on May 15, 2020.

The Motion

After discovery ended, HNTB moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

For a Title VII retaliation claim, the employee must provide evidence that she engaged in activity protected by Title VII, the employer knew about it, the employer took an action that could deter a reasonable employee from making a discrimination complaint, and the protected activity was a but-for cause of that action. If the employee establishes an initial case, the employer must provide a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason; the employee must then show that reason was a pretext, meaning a cover for retaliation.

Title VII Ruling

The court held that Valentine’s complaints did not constitute protected activity under Title VII. The court explained that the race-related complaints concerned Grant’s conduct toward visitors, who were not HNTB employees. Valentine did not complain that she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of a protected characteristic, and she did not allege that she or another employee shared the race or ethnicity of the visitors involved. The court therefore concluded that Valentine had not shown that she was opposing an unlawful employment practice covered by Title VII.

The court also ruled that the Title VII claim would fail even if Valentine had established protected activity. HNTB provided evidence supporting its stated reasons for the performance improvement plan and termination, including Valentine’s work performance, her relationship with Grant, complaints from the Port Authority, and downsizing connected to the JFK Project. The court found that Valentine had not offered evidence showing those reasons were a pretext for retaliation. The court therefore granted HNTB’s motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claim.

New York City Human Rights Law Claim

After granting summary judgment on the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Valentine’s remaining New York City Human Rights Law claim. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state or local claims, but the court generally may decline to do so after all federal claims have been eliminated before trial. The court dismissed the NYCHRL claim without prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted HNTB’s motion for summary judgment on Valentine’s Title VII claim and dismissed Valentine’s NYCHRL claim without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion, enter judgment, and close the case.