Shi v. Bagatelle International, Inc.

Background

Tingyue Shi sued her former employer, Bagatelle International, Inc., also known as Bagatelle International (USA), Inc., and her former direct supervisor, Anne King. Shi alleged fifteen federal and state claims involving race, national origin, disability, perceived disability, and retaliation. Bagatelle moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Shi worked as a sourcing manager in Bagatelle’s New York office from November 26, 2018, to June 13, 2019. After both lungs collapsed and she underwent surgery, she returned to work in January 2019. Shi alleged that King treated her disrespectfully because of her Chinese accent, race, national origin, disability, and perceived disability, and that she was fired because of those characteristics. Bagatelle denied the alleged conduct and said Shi was fired solely for poor performance. The parties submitted conflicting declarations about King’s conduct and the reasons for the termination.

Race and National-Origin Claims

The court denied Bagatelle’s motion for summary judgment on Shi’s race and national-origin discrimination claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, Counts 1–6.

The court concluded that Shi had provided enough evidence to establish the initial requirements for discrimination claims. It was undisputed that she belonged to a protected class and suffered an adverse employment action when she was fired. Her resume and the absence of documentation before her termination about performance concerns supported the conclusion that she was qualified. Shi’s declaration and three other declarations described specific examples of alleged discriminatory and derogatory conduct, which supported an inference of discrimination.

The court also held that Bagatelle had not adequately supported its asserted performance reason for the termination. Bagatelle relied primarily on general statements that it had received complaints and on a statement that Shi failed to share pricing and cost information. The court found that this evidence did not sufficiently meet Bagatelle’s evidentiary burden. Independently, the competing declarations created genuine disputes about Bagatelle’s motivation and Shi’s performance. Because the court could not decide witness credibility at summary judgment, it denied judgment on the Title VII and New York State claims. It also denied judgment on the related New York City claims, which apply a broader standard.

Disability and Perceived-Disability Claims

The court granted Bagatelle’s motion for summary judgment on Shi’s disability and perceived-disability claims, Counts 7–12, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

For the Americans with Disabilities Act claims, Counts 7 and 10, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Shi’s charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did not include disability discrimination and the references to her surgeries and medical appointment were not enough to make disability discrimination reasonably related to the claims she did identify. The charge checked boxes for race, retaliation, and national origin, but not disability, and its narrative repeatedly attributed the alleged discrimination to Shi’s Asian and Chinese identity.

For the New York State and New York City claims, the court found that Shi had not shown that she had, or was perceived to have, a qualifying disability or that her termination was because of such a disability. The court noted that Shi’s pneumothorax and surgeries kept her from working from December 20, 2018, to January 7, 2019, but she did not allege continuing effects after returning to work other than restrictions on lifting heavy objects and exposure to stress or anxiety for an unspecified period. She also did not allege that Bagatelle or King made statements showing that they perceived her as disabled. The approximately six-month period between her surgeries and termination provided an additional reason not to infer disability-based discrimination.

Retaliation Claims

The court granted Bagatelle’s motion for summary judgment on Shi’s retaliation claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, Counts 13–15.

Shi relied on her alleged complaint that another employee, Sophia Solomonson, received more favorable treatment when her paid-time-off request was approved while Shi’s request was initially denied. The court held that Shi had not shown that she expressly complained that the different treatment was based on race or national origin. According to the court, her complaint at most implied discrimination and could instead have been a complaint about unfair treatment generally. Because she did not establish that she engaged in protected activity, she could not establish the required initial retaliation claim.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Bagatelle’s motion for summary judgment. It granted the motion as to Shi’s disability and perceived-disability discrimination claims, Counts 7–12, and her retaliation claims, Counts 13–15. It denied the motion as to her race and national-origin discrimination claims, Counts 1–6. The court directed the parties to appear at a pretrial conference and directed the clerk to terminate the motion.