Russell v. Westchester Community College

Background

Suzan Russell sued Westchester Community College, Veronica Delcourt, Heather Ostman, and Westchester County. She alleged discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Russell claimed that Defendants discriminated against her because of heart problems and retaliated against her complaints by not offering her classes for the Fall 2014 semester. She also asserted that Dr. Delcourt and Dr. Ostman aided and abetted the alleged discrimination and retaliation.

Russell was working as an adjunct professor at Westchester Community College when she experienced what she described as a cardiac event in March 2014. After a student complained about Russell’s conduct, college personnel questioned her about classroom practices and communicated with her about the incident. Russell then sent emails and made calls accusing college personnel of discriminatory treatment, threatening litigation, and discussing her health. After a May 8, 2014 meeting, Defendants decided not to offer Russell classes for the Fall 2014 semester. Russell later filed discrimination complaints online.

Defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is granted when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court reviewed the pleadings, the parties’ factual submissions, and the admissible evidence, viewing reasonable inferences in Russell’s favor.

Disability-discrimination claims

Russell’s first and third claims alleged disability discrimination under the ADA and NYSHRL. The court applied the burden-shifting framework used in employment-discrimination cases. Under that framework, a plaintiff first must present evidence supporting an initial discrimination case; the defendant then must identify a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action; and the plaintiff must show that reason was a pretext, meaning a cover for unlawful discrimination.

For her actual-disability theory, Russell relied on alleged heart conditions and related limitations. The court found that the medical records did not support her claimed conditions and that she had not produced sufficient medical evidence showing that a heart condition substantially limited a major life activity, as required for an actual disability under the ADA. The court also found that Russell had not shown that Defendants regarded her as disabled. Her communications about her health, Dr. Ostman’s later descriptions of her behavior, and an unsent draft email from Dr. Delcourt did not create a genuine factual dispute on that issue.

The court further held that, even assuming Russell had established an initial discrimination case, Defendants offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not offering her classes. The reason was their perception of her workplace conduct, including the student’s report, her interactions with Dr. Delcourt and Dr. Ostman, and her emails. The court found that Russell had not presented sufficient evidence that this explanation was false or that her health or discrimination complaints motivated the decision. It therefore granted summary judgment dismissing the ADA and NYSHRL discrimination claims.

Retaliation claims

Russell’s second and fourth claims alleged retaliation under the ADA and NYSHRL. She identified emails from May 7 through May 10, 2014 and a claimed disability-accommodation request made before the decision not to offer her classes. The court stated that a request for a disability accommodation can be protected activity and accepted, for purposes of its analysis, Russell’s testimony that she had made such a request. The court also noted that her July 10, 2014 online complaint occurred after the adverse employment decision and therefore could not support a retaliation claim based on that decision.

Assuming Russell had established the initial elements of a retaliation claim, the court held that her claims still failed at the pretext stage. Defendants relied on the same legitimate reason—their perception of Russell’s conduct—for the decision not to offer her classes. The court found that Russell’s evidence did not support an inference that this reason was a cover for retaliation. It granted summary judgment dismissing the retaliation claims.

Aiding-and-abetting claim and disposition

Russell’s fifth claim alleged that Dr. Delcourt and Dr. Ostman aided and abetted the discrimination and retaliation. Because the court dismissed the underlying discrimination and retaliation claims, it concluded that there was no unlawful conduct for Dr. Delcourt or Dr. Ostman to have aided or abetted. It therefore granted summary judgment dismissing the fifth claim as well.

Order

The court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Russell’s Amended Complaint. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and close the case.