Weaver v. Bloomberg, L.P.

Background

Allison Weaver, a Black woman, alleged that her former employer, Bloomberg L.P., terminated her because of her race. She asserted disparate-treatment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint originally included race- and disability-related discrimination and retaliation claims, but Weaver stipulated to dismissal of all claims except the claim for racially discriminatory discharge.

Bloomberg documented performance concerns about Weaver beginning in 2018. These concerns included lateness, ticket and order management, technical and procedural knowledge, project management, and the need for oversight. Weaver received verbal warnings and performance improvement plans in 2019 and 2021. After further performance reviews, Bloomberg approved her termination, and Achong and HR representative Katherine Polis notified Weaver of the termination on December 6, 2021.

Weaver also alleged that Miguelina Rios, a senior manager, was racially biased against her and played a role in the termination. In a July 2021 human-resources interview, Achong reportedly said that Rios appeared to have issues with women of color with degrees, judged women of color more harshly, spoke demeaningly to Weaver and other women of color, and did not speak that way to white men. Weaver also testified that Achong told her Rios was trying to get rid of her because Rios did not like Black women. Rios denied recommending Weaver’s termination but acknowledged discussing Weaver’s performance and termination with Achong. Achong testified that Rios was present during discussions with HR about Weaver’s termination.

Legal standard

Bloomberg moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result. In employment-discrimination cases, a plaintiff must ultimately provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that discrimination was a motivating factor in the adverse employment decision. The plaintiff does not have to show that the employer’s stated reason played no role; race may be one motivating factor even if performance problems also contributed.

Court’s analysis

The court accepted that Bloomberg had identified a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination: its contemporaneously documented concerns about Weaver’s performance. The issue was therefore whether a reasonable jury could still find that race was a motivating factor.

The court concluded that a jury could find that Rios harbored racial animus toward Weaver. It treated Achong’s statements to HR as evidence that could be considered at summary judgment. Bloomberg had not challenged the statements’ admissibility in its summary-judgment briefing, and the court stated there were reasons they could generally be admissible as statements by a Bloomberg employee concerning matters within the scope of her employment. The court also noted that disagreements about the weight and credibility of Achong’s statements belonged at trial rather than at summary judgment.

The court further concluded that a jury could find Rios participated in the termination decision. Rios had discussed Weaver’s performance and termination with Achong, and Rios was present during important HR discussions concerning the termination. The court recognized that a jury could instead find Rios’s influence was too limited, but at summary judgment it was required to draw reasonable inferences in Weaver’s favor.

Disposition

Judge Engelmayer denied Bloomberg’s motion for summary judgment as to Weaver’s Title VII claim. Because the court found that the Title VII claim survived, it also denied the motion as to Weaver’s parallel New York State and New York City claims. The court stated that the case would proceed to trial and directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions.