Henderson v. Rite Aid Corporation of New York Inc., et al
Filing
75
DECISION & ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation, Docket Item 70 . The defendants' motion for summary judgment, Docket Item 58 , is GRANTED; the complaint, Docket Item 1 , is dismissed; and the Clerk of the Court shall close the file. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 10/09/2020. (CEH)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SUSAN HENDERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
16-CV-0785-HKS
DECISION & ORDER
RITE AID CORPORATION OF NEW
YORK, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
On September 30, 2016, the plaintiff commenced this action under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, and the New York
Human Rights Law (“NYHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290-301. Docket Item 1.
On December 2, 2016, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge
H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr., for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B).
Docket Item 13.
On September 28, 2018, the defendants, Rite Aid Pharmacy Corporation of New
York, Inc. (“Rite Aid”), Tim Matthews, and David Seelman, moved for summary
judgment, Docket Item 58; on October 26, 2018, the plaintiff responded, Docket
Item 61; and on November 14, 2018, the defendants replied, Docket Item 65. On April
23, 2020, Judge Schroeder issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") finding that
the defendants' motion should be granted. Docket Item 70.
On May 13, 2020, Henderson objected to the R&R, Docket Item 71; on June 4,
2020, the defendants responded to the objection, Docket Item 73; and on June 18,
2020, Henderson replied, Docket Item 74.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of
a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The court must
review de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party
objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
This Court has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the R&R; the record in this
case; the objection, response, and reply; and the materials submitted to Judge
Schroeder. Based on that de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge
Schroeder’s recommendation to grant the defendants' motion.
DISCUSSION
The Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts alleged in the complaint,
see Docket Item 1, and Judge Schroeder's analysis in the R&R, see Docket Item 70.
Henderson argues that Judge Schroeder incorrectly resolved certain factual
disputes in the defendants’ favor. See Docket Item 71 at 1. More specifically, she
argues that the defendants’ proffered reason for terminating her employment—
misconduct in the course of completing required training—is pretextual based on
statistical evidence showing that Rite Aid terminated older employees at a significantly
higher rate than younger employees. Id. at 3-4. In other words, she argues that the
statistical evidence is so compelling that notwithstanding her admitted misconduct, there
is a question of fact as to whether that misconduct was the real reason she was fired.
“[T]he burden-shifting framework set forth by the Supreme Court in McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) applies to claims brought under the
ADEA.” Delaney v. Bank of Am. Corp., 766 F.3d 163, 167-68 (2d Cir. 2014) (citing
Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93, 106 (2d Cir.2010)). Under that
2
framework, “the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership
in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and
circumstances that give at least minimal support to an inference of discrimination.”
Fagan v. N.Y.S. Elec. & Gas Corp., 186 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir. 1999) (citations
omitted). 1 “Establishment of a prima facie case [then] obliges the employer to offer a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision.” Id. (citation omitted).
“If the employer articulates this nondiscriminatory reason,” the burden shifts back to the
plaintiff to “show that the proffered reason was a pretext for age discrimination.” Id.
(citations omitted).
Here, Judge Schroeder “assumed that [Henderson] ha[d] established a prima
facie case”; found that the defendants had “satisfied [their] burden to articulate a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for [Henderson’s] termination, to wit, [her] direction
that a co-worker advance a computer based training program that [Henderson] was
required to complete”; and concluded that Henderson’s statistical evidence did not
suffice to show that the defendants’ proffered reason was pretextual. Docket Item 70 at
9-10. With respect to the final step, Judge Schroeder specifically found that, in the end,
Henderson had “failed to identify any individual outside of her protected class who
engaged in similar behavior and was treated differently,” instead offering only
“anecdotal observations” of such disparate treatment. Id. at 10.
The Court agrees with Judge Schroeder’s analysis. As the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has explained, “[a]ppropriate statistical data showing an
1
“[T]he New York Human Rights Law statute mirrors the requirements of the
ADEA.” Abrahamson v. Bd. of Educ. of Wappingers Falls Cent. Sch. Dist., 374 F.3d 66
n.2, 71 (2d Cir. 2004).
3
employer's pattern of conduct toward a protected class as a group can, if unrebutted,
create an inference that a defendant discriminated against individual members of the
class.” Barnes v. GenCorp Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1466 (6th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added).
But “statistics indicat[ing] a disproportionate discharge rate for a protected group”—
precisely and only what Henderson offers—do not suffice, on their own, to show that a
defendant’s proffered reason is pretextual. Id. at 1468. That is so because “there are
three possible explanations for [such] discrepanc[ies]: the operation of legitimate
selection criteria, chance, or the defendant's [illegitimate] bias”; “statistics . . . cannot
determine whether the more likely cause [was] . . . bias or . . . selection criterion.” Id. at
1468-69 (citations omitted).
Stated differently, although Henderson’s statistical evidence sufficed at the first
step of the McDonnel-Douglas framework, it does not—standing alone—suffice at the
third. Rather, to meet her burden once the defendants proffered a nondiscriminatory
reason for her termination, Henderson was required to produce more—either “statistics
. . . tend[ing] to establish that age played a factor in [her] particular [termination]
decision” or “other direct or circumstantial evidence suggesting that the proffered
reasons are not true.” Id. at 1469 (emphasis in original). Henderson has not done so,
instead merely asserting, without evidentiary support, that other older employees also
were harassed and unfairly discharged.
What is more, Henderson admitted the misconduct that the defendants proffered
as the reason she was fired. When confronted with evidence that she had one of her
subordinates complete a training program for her, Henderson explained that there were
“extenuating circumstances,” apologized, and promised to “never do this again.” See
4
Docket Item 58-4 at 46; Docket Item 70 at 3. As Judge Schroeder noted, Henderson
argues that the misconduct was far less serious than misconduct that the defendants
regularly overlooked, but such business judgments should not be subjected to “judicial
second-guessing.” See Docket Item 70 at 9 (quoting Leiner v. Fresenius Kabi USA,
LLC, 14-CV-979S, 2019 WL 5683003, at *9 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2019)).
For all those reasons, this Court accepts Judge Schroeder’s recommendation; for
those same reasons and the reasons in the R&R, Henderson’s claims are dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the defendants' motion for
summary judgment, Docket Item 58, is GRANTED; the complaint, Docket Item 1, is
dismissed; and the Clerk of the Court shall close the file.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 9, 2020
Buffalo, New York
/s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?