Kam v. Aramark American Food Services, Inc.

Background

Herman Kam, proceeding without a lawyer at the time of the motion, sued his former employer, Aramark American Food Services, Inc. He asserted discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The complaint alleged ongoing hostility and harassment based on race, national origin, age, and religion, as well as retaliation for complaints to a supervisor and human resources.

Kam worked as a catering waiter beginning in May 2017. According to the undisputed facts used by the court, he was reassigned after complaints from a coworker and employees of another company. From July 2020 until his termination in June 2021, coworkers and managers reported disruptive and aggressive conduct, including inappropriate messages, yelling, recording conversations without consent, comments about bringing a firearm to work, harassment, and other inappropriate comments. An internal investigation into Kam’s complaints found them unsubstantiated but documented inappropriate conduct by Kam. Aramark later issued a final written warning, and it terminated his employment effective June 10, 2021, after further confrontations.

Summary-Judgment Procedure

Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is legally entitled to win. Aramark moved for summary judgment. Kam did not file a timely opposition, and after the court granted him a two-week extension, he submitted a three-page letter that repeated allegations from his complaint but did not meaningfully respond to the motion. He also did not respond to Aramark’s required statement of material facts. The court treated the facts in that statement as uncontested and admissible, while recognizing that it still had to determine whether Aramark was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Discrimination Claims

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used for employment discrimination claims under Title VII, § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Under that framework, a plaintiff must first make an initial showing that he belongs to a protected group, was qualified, suffered an adverse employment action, and was terminated under circumstances suggesting discriminatory intent. If that showing is made, the employer must provide a lawful reason for its action, and the plaintiff must then present evidence that the reason was a pretext for discrimination.

The court held that Kam failed to make the required initial showing. His opposition repeated allegations that coworkers mistreated him, but he did not identify specific supporting facts. The court noted that, at his deposition, Kam could not substantiate or affirm his claims and said that there were no witnesses to corroborate an alleged racial insult. The court also found that Kam had offered no evidence about his job performance. Even assuming he had made the initial showing, the court held that Aramark had produced evidence that his conduct, rather than unlawful discrimination, caused his termination, and Kam had offered no evidence that this explanation was untrue.

Retaliation Claims

For retaliation, the court required evidence that Kam engaged in protected activity opposing unlawful discrimination, that Aramark knew about it, that he suffered an adverse action, and that the protected activity caused the action. The court held that Kam failed to establish an initial retaliation case because he did not support or explain the claim with evidence from the record. The court further held that, even if he had met that initial burden, Aramark had shown legitimate reasons unrelated to retaliation for terminating him, and Kam had presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find illegal retaliation.

Disposition

The court granted Aramark’s motion for summary judgment in full. It concluded that Kam had not established an initial case for any of his claims and had not shown a material factual dispute. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.