Pasquarello v. Crothall Healthcare, Inc.

Background

Joseph Pasquarello sued Crothall Healthcare, Inc. and Michael Roche. He alleged age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He also alleged that Crothall violated the New York State Equal Pay Act. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, meaning they argued that the evidence did not present a genuine dispute requiring a trial.

Pasquarello worked as Crothall’s Assistant Fire Safety Director beginning in the fall of 2019. He claimed that Roche treated him differently because of his age, including by making age-related comments, favoring younger employees, denying him equipment and resources, criticizing his knowledge, and ignoring his input. Pasquarello also relied on a June 2021 performance improvement plan, later counseling, the hiring of Bernie Nunez as Director of Fire Safety instead of promoting Pasquarello, and his September 2021 resignation.

The defendants maintained that Pasquarello’s performance did not meet expectations. They pointed to concerns about time management, completion of preventive-maintenance tasks, interim life-safety reviews, work-order documentation, and other fire-safety responsibilities. The court described disputes about several underlying events but considered the evidence in the light most favorable to Pasquarello when applying the summary-judgment standard.

Federal Age-Discrimination Claims

The court held that Pasquarello failed to show that he suffered a materially adverse employment action under the federal age-discrimination law. The June 2021 performance improvement plan clarified performance expectations and did not change his pay or responsibilities. The July 2021 counseling likewise did not, by itself, materially change his employment. The court also found that Pasquarello did not provide enough evidence that the plan or counseling was an unachievable pretext for termination.

The court rejected Pasquarello’s constructive-discharge theory. Constructive discharge occurs when working conditions are so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. The court found that the alleged comments, criticism, workplace conduct, performance plan, and counseling did not show conditions that were objectively intolerable. It also rejected Pasquarello’s pay-disparity argument because Nunez held a different position and Pasquarello had not provided enough information to show that Nunez was an appropriate comparison employee.

The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the federal age-discrimination claim.

Hostile-Work-Environment Claim

The court noted that Pasquarello’s complaint did not clearly assert a hostile-work-environment claim. The court nevertheless considered the claim and ruled for the defendants. It found that the alleged age-related comments and other conduct were too general, isolated, or insufficiently severe and pervasive to establish a workplace permeated by discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult. The court also found that Pasquarello had not shown a sufficient basis for attributing coworkers’ comments to Crothall.

Retaliation Claim

Pasquarello claimed that the performance improvement plan and counseling were retaliation for his complaints to Human Resources about age discrimination. The court held that the timing did not support an inference of retaliation because Crothall’s performance criticisms and disciplinary process began months before Pasquarello complained. Roche gave Pasquarello a negative performance assessment in October 2020 and began preparing counseling in December 2020, while Pasquarello’s complaints occurred in May and June 2021.

The court further held that Pasquarello did not present enough evidence that Crothall’s stated reason—his long-standing performance problems—was a pretext for retaliation. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the federal retaliation claim.

State and City Claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Pasquarello’s remaining claims under New York State and New York City law, including the state and city discrimination and retaliation claims and the New York State Equal Pay Act claim. The court explained that those claims raise state-law questions and could be evaluated in state court.

Disposition

The conclusion states that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part. Counts 1 and 2 were dismissed with prejudice, and all other counts were dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case.