Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
March 1, 2012, Submitted; December 21, 2012, Decided
Docket No. 11-762-cv
[*15] LOHIER, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs Enio Rivera and Michael Talton, employees of Lift Line, Inc., a subsidiary of Rochester Genesee [**2] Regional Transportation Authority ("RGRTA"), appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.), granting the summary judgment motion of RGRTA and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"). RGRTA is the only defendant against which this appeal was taken.2 [*16] On appeal, Rivera, who is of Puerto Rican descent, and Talton, an African American, contend that they proffered sufficient evidence that they were subjected to a hostile work environment based on national origin and race, respectively, and thereafter were retaliated against for complaining about it.3 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the District Court as to Rivera's retaliation claims, but vacate the judgment of the District Court as to plaintiffs' remaining claims against RGRTA and remand to the District Court for further proceedings.
] In reviewing the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of RGRTA, "we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[s], drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving all ambiguities in [their] favor." In re Omnicom Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., 597 F.3d 501, 504 (2d Cir. 2010) (quotation marks omitted).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
743 F.3d 11 *; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 27111 **; 121 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1083; 2014 WL 518791
ENIO R. RIVERA, MICHAEL TALTON, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ROCHESTER GENESEE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee, JOHN TIBERIO, Defendant.1
Subsequent History: [**1] Amended: February 10, 2014.
Prior History: Enio Rivera and Michael Talton, employees of the Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority ("RGRTA"), sued that agency, alleging that they were subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of race and national origin and were retaliated against for complaining about the hostile work environment. The District Court granted summary judgment to RGRTA on all claims. Because we conclude that genuine issues of material fact exist as to plaintiff-appellant Rivera's hostile work environment claims against RGRTA and as to all of plaintiff-appellant Talton's claims against RGRTA, we VACATE in part the grant of summary judgment and REMAND to the District Court for further proceedings as to these claims. However, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court as to plaintiff-appellant Rivera's claims of retaliation.
Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth., 702 F.3d 685, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26211 (2d Cir. N.Y., 2012)Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg'l Transp. Auth., 761 F. Supp. 2d 54, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7635 (W.D.N.Y., 2011)
harassment, district court, co-workers, complaints, quotation, marks, national origin, ethnic slur, retaliation, summary judgment, retaliation claim, hostile work environment, charges, hostile work environment claim, adverse employment action, racial slur, circumstances, mechanic, hostile, vacate, light most favorable, protected activity, present evidence, employees, reasons, buses, slurs, gun, grant of summary judgment, deposition testimony
Civil Procedure, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, General Overview, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Standards of Review, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Labor & Employment Law, Racial Harassment, Burdens of Proof, Employee Burdens of Proof, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Discrimination, Reconstruction Statutes, Harassing Conduct, Retaliation, Burdens of Proof, Elements, Adverse Employment Actions, Statutory Application, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Judgments, Evidentiary Considerations, Causation, Judicial Officers, Judges, Discretionary Powers, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Supplemental Jurisdiction, Disparate Treatment, Evidence, Title VII Discrimination, Scope & Definitions