Bernardi v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision…

Background

Romano Bernardi sued the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) and Daniel Rushia under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Bernardi alleged that events connected to his employment as a Grade 12 electrician at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility involved discrimination based on race or national origin, a hostile work environment, and retaliation for opposing discrimination.

Bernardi had previously filed a discrimination complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. He and DOCCS entered a settlement agreement on February 9, 2015, that released DOCCS from employment-related claims arising before that date, including employment-discrimination claims. The court therefore did not consider pre-February 2015 incidents as part of Bernardi’s current claims.

The later events included Bernardi’s complaints about ethnic remarks allegedly made by coworker Anthony Mangione, his complaints about overtime distribution between foreign-born and American-born employees, several notices of discipline, his suspension without pay, and his termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence presents a genuine factual dispute requiring a trial.

Title VII Discrimination Claim

Bernardi claimed that foreign-born employees received less overtime than American-born employees. The defendants argued that Bernardi had higher overtime earnings than almost all American-born maintenance workers and that he had not shown discriminatory intent.

The court held that Bernardi had not shown that he personally received less overtime because of his national origin. He relied on statistics comparing foreign-born and American-born employees overall, but he did not identify comparable American-born employees who received overtime at a higher rate than he did or specific occasions when he requested overtime and was denied it. Because statistics alone did not establish that Bernardi personally suffered discriminatory treatment, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants on this Title VII discrimination claim.

Hostile Work Environment Claims

Bernardi asserted hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII, § 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The court explained that these claims require evidence that the workplace was sufficiently permeated by discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive environment.

After February 2015, Bernardi identified three specific incidents involving Mangione and several other occasions when Mangione allegedly told him to go back to Italy. The court found that these events, occurring over approximately three years, were too isolated to be frequent or pervasive. It also found that the incidents, considered together, were not sufficiently severe, that no single incident was extraordinarily severe, and that Bernardi had not identified evidence that the conduct interfered with his work. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the hostile-work-environment claims.

Title VII Retaliation Claim

The court found that Bernardi engaged in protected activity through complaints about discriminatory language and conduct, including complaints made in October 2017, November 2017, and April 2018, a May 2018 notice of claim, and an August 2018 charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court also found that the defendants knew about that activity.

The court treated Bernardi’s termination and three notices of discipline as potentially adverse actions. It found a sufficiently close timing connection between Bernardi’s April 9, 2018 complaint and the April 13, 2018 notice of discipline, and between his May 22, 2018 notice of claim and the June 12, 2018 notice of discipline. However, Bernardi did not show that the April 13 notice was a pretext for retaliation, so his retaliation claim failed as to that notice. The court found no sufficiently close timing or direct evidence of retaliatory motive concerning the July 26 notice or Bernardi’s termination.

The court reached a different conclusion regarding the June 12 notice of discipline. That notice said Bernardi had made false statements in his October 4, 2017 memorandum and November 3, 2017 complaint. The defendants relied on witness statements concerning different events, and the court found that those statements did not explain the June 12 notice. The court also found it significant that the June 12 notice was not sent to Bernardi’s updated address even though the April 13 and July 26 notices were sent there. Together with the timing of the notice, those circumstances were enough to create a triable factual issue about pretext. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claim to that extent.

Disposition

The court’s order states that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Summary judgment was granted on Bernardi’s Title VII discrimination claim and his hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII, § 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The motion was denied in part because Bernardi’s Title VII retaliation claim presented a triable issue of fact concerning the June 12, 2018 notice of discipline. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion, and the parties were directed to submit a joint status letter after reassignment to a new judge.