Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist.

Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

August 26, 2003, Argued ; April 7, 2004, Decided

Docket No. 03-7058

Opinion

 [*113]  CALABRESI, Circuit Judge:

In 1998, Plaintiff-Appellant Elana Back was hired as a school psychologist at the Hillside Elementary School ("Hillside") on a three-year tenure track. At the end of that period, when Back came up for review, she was denied tenure and her probationary period was terminated. Back subsequently brought this lawsuit, seeking damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). She alleged that [**2]  the termination violated her constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. Defendants-Appellees contend that Back was fired because she lacked organizational and interpersonal skills. Back asserts that the real reason she was let go was that the defendants presumed that she, as a young mother, would not continue to demonstrate the necessary devotion to her job, and indeed that she could not maintain such devotion while at the same time being a good mother.

This appeal thus poses an important question, one that strikes at the persistent "fault line between work and family - precisely where sex-based overgeneralization has been and remains strongest." Nev. Dep't of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 123 S. Ct. 1972, 1983, 155 L. Ed. 2d 953 (2003). It asks ] whether stereotyping about the qualities of mothers is a form of gender discrimination, and whether this can be determined in the absence of evidence about how the employer in question treated fathers. We answer both questions in the affirmative. We also conclude that the plaintiff has asserted genuine issues of material fact in her gender discrimination claim against two of the individual defendants, Marilyn [**3]  Wishnie and Ann Brennan. No evidence, however, has been proffered that is sufficient to support liability on the part of the School District or Superintendent Russell. Finally, we hold that qualified immunity does not attach to defendants Brennan and Wishnie, because the right to be free from discriminatory sex stereotyping was well established at the time of the alleged violation.

We therefore affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to the School District and to Russell, but vacate its grant of summary judgment to Wishnie and Brennan, and, as to them, remand the case for trial.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

365 F.3d 107 *; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 6684 **; 93 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1430; 85 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41,755

ELANA BACK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HASTINGS ON HUDSON UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, JOHN J. RUSSELL, ANNE BRENNAN, MARILYN WISHNIE, Defendants-Appellees.

Subsequent History: As Amended, April 26, 2004.

Appeal after remand at Back v. Hastings on Hudson, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 28973 (2d Cir., Dec. 28, 2005)

Prior History:  [**1]  Plaintiff brought a gender discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York State's Executive Law, alleging that she was denied tenure because the defendants gave credence and effect to stereotypes about mothers with young children. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Charles Brieant presiding, granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Disposition: Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part.

CORE TERMS

stereotypes, tenure, summary judgment, recommendation, gender, discriminatory, evaluations, qualified immunity, comments, sex, proffered, reasons, terminated, teachers, gender discrimination, school district, material fact, discriminate, allegations, woman, deprivation, outstanding, sex discrimination, prima facie case, circumstances, complaints, motherhood, feminine, adduced, motive

Civil Rights Law, Protection of Rights, Section 1983 Actions, Scope, Constitutional Law, Equal Protection, Gender & Sex, Labor & Employment Law, Gender & Sex Discrimination, Scope & Definitions, General Overview, Business & Corporate Compliance, Federally Assisted Programs, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Discrimination, Elements, Protected Rights, Actionable Discrimination, Employment Practices, Sex-Plus Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Evidence, Education Law, Discrimination in Schools, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Gender Stereotypes, Judgments, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Color of State Law, State Agents, Burdens of Proof, Burden Shifting, Circumstantial & Direct Evidence, Opposing Materials, Evidence, Ultimate Burden of Persuasion, Materiality of Facts, Evidentiary Considerations, Causal Relationship, Torts, Causation, Intervening Causation, Immunity From Liability, Local Officials, Deliberate Indifference, Scope, Government Actions, Civil Liability, Civil Rights Act of 1871, Governments, Local Governments, Claims By & Against, Educational Institutions, Executive Officials, Defenses