Employer met its burden of showing employee failed to establish her age discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge and retaliation claims

To contact us Click HERE

Employer met its burden of showing employee failed to establishher age discrimination, hostile work environment, constructive discharge andretaliation claims 2012 NY Slip Op 08248, Appellate Division, First Department
In this action, theplaintiff [P] alleged that she was the target of unlawful age discrimination,served in a hostile work environment, and was subjected to constrictivedischarge and retaliation.
The AppellateDivision sustained the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the P’s petition, finding that the employer had met its burden ofdemonstrating P failed to establish her claims of age discrimination,hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation.
The Appellate Division, with respect to P’s unlawful discriminationclaim, explained that there was no evidence that P suffered from an adverseemployment action. The assignment of P to certain non-supervisory tasksordinarily performed by teachers constituted "merely an alteration of herresponsibilities and did not result in a materially adverse change,' since [she]retained the terms and conditions of her employment, and her salary remainedthe same."*
The court said that P failed to raise a triable issue offact as to her hostile work environment claim, since the alleged conduct andinsults by her employer and coworkers were not "sufficiently severe orpervasive to alter the conditions of [her] employment"
Addressing P’s claim of constructive discharge, the courtsaid that standard for establishing "constructive dismissal" is higher than the standard forestablishing a hostile work environment, “where, as here, the allegedconstructive discharge stems from the alleged hostile work environment.” As Pfailed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to her hostile work environmentclaim, "her claim of constructive discharge also fails.” 
Finally, the Appellate Division held that with respect to P'sretaliation claim in found no evidence of an adverse employment actionresulting from her filing of a notice of claim against the employer nor was thereany evidence of a causal connection between P's commencement of litigation andthe allegedly adverse actions against her, commenting that the conduct at issuebegan months before P filed the notice of claim
* As to P’s complaint allegeddisciplinary memoranda in her file, threats of unsatisfactory ratings, disciplinarymeetings and allegations of corporal punishment, these did not constitute adverse employmentactions as P received "satisfactory end-of-year performance rating[s], andnone of the [alleged] reprimands resulted in any reduction in pay orprivileges."
The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2012/2012_08248.htm