Carris v. First Student, Inc.

15-3350
Carris v. First Student, Inc.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New
York, on the 8th day of March, two thousand seventeen.
PRESENT:
ROBERT A. KATZMANN,
Chief Judge,
GERARD E. LYNCH,
DENNY CHIN,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
Margo Carris,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. 15-3350
First Student, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
_____________________________________
FOR APPELLANT: Margo Carris, pro se, Syracuse, NY.
FOR APPELLEE: Ivan Ross Novich, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Newark, NJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
New York (Suddaby, C.J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part,
and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
Appellant Margo Carris, proceeding pro se, appeals from the judgment entered by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, C.J.) on September
18, 2015, dismissing Carris’s complaint and denying her leave to amend the complaint. In her
complaint, Carris alleged, inter alia, that her former employer, First Student, Inc., fired her based
on her race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (1982),
and New York Executive Law § 296. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts,
the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim,
“construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and
drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282
F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). The complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face,” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and “allow[ ]
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
To survive a motion to dismiss, a Title VII plaintiff does not have to plead a full prima facie
case pursuant to the first stage of the burden-shifting framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); she “need only give plausible support to a minimal inference
of discriminatory motivation.” Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 84 (2d
Cir. 2015) (quoting Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 311 (2d Cir. 2015)). To support
2
a minimal inference of discrimination, a plaintiff may allege disparate treatment by showing “the
more favorable treatment of employees not in the protected group,” Littlejohn, 795 F.3d at 312
(quoting Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ., 584 F.3d 487, 502 (2d Cir. 2009)), who are “similarly situated
in all material respects.” Brown v. Daikin Am. Inc., 756 F.3d 219, 230 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting
Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34, 39 (2d Cir. 2000)). Whether the plaintiff and these
comparator employees are similarly situated in “‘all material respects’ will vary from case to
case,” and while “[t]he plaintiff’s and comparator’s circumstances must bear a ‘reasonably close
resemblance,’” they “need not be ‘identical.’” Brown, 756 F.3d at 230 (quoting Graham, 230 F.3d
at 40). For a disparate treatment claim based on an employer’s imposition of lighter discipline for
comparators’ misconduct, the determination whether the comparators’ offenses were of
“comparable seriousness requires – in addition to an examination of the acts – an examination of
the context and surrounding circumstances in which those acts are evaluated.” Graham, 230 F.3d
at 40. “Ordinarily, ‘[w]hether two employees are similarly situated . . . presents a question of
fact,’ rather than a legal question to be resolved on a motion to dismiss.” Brown, 756 F.3d at 230
(quoting Graham, 230 F.3d at 39); see also Graham, 230 F.3d at 42-44 (reversing summary
judgment where the plaintiff offered sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that
comparators received lighter punishment for comparably serious violations of the same
disciplinary standards).
Here, Carris alleged facts that plausibly gave rise to an inference of discrimination: she
claimed that she was terminated for violating a company policy concerning student confidentiality
although three white bus drivers, who violated policies concerning student safety, were only
placed on administrative leave. See Compl. ¶¶ 14-16. Depending on the results of discovery, “an
3
examination of the context and surrounding circumstances in which [the employees’] acts are
evaluated,” Graham, 230 F.3d at 40, could reasonably yield the conclusion that the three
comparator bus drivers’ violations were comparably serious to that of Carris. See Graham, 230
F.3d at 39-40; see also Brown, 756 F.3d at 230-31. The comparators’ conduct, based on the
allegations of the complaint, appeared to jeopardize student safety. Two of the white bus drivers
left sleeping children on buses, and one of these drivers, upon realizing that the children were still
on the bus, “rushed back into the driver seat and proceeded to exit the yard without reporting it to
safety.” Compl. ¶¶ 15-16. The other comparator bus driver deposited a kindergarten student at
an unauthorized stop in the dark, leaving the child at least six minutes away by foot from his home.
See id. ¶ 14.
According to the complaint, Carris’s violation of company policy arose when she visited a
student’s home after the student hit and spit on other students on the bus, causing chaos while
Carris was driving. See id. ¶¶ 11-12. Although Carris’s conduct was intentional rather than
negligent, this factor alone may not warrant the finding that the comparators were not similarly
situated.1 Further factual development is needed to aid in the determination of whether Carris
was similarly situated to white comparators who received more lenient punishments than she did.
Consequently, we find that Carris has pleaded facts that give “plausible support to a minimal
inference of discriminatory motivation,” Vega, 801 F.3d at 84 (citing Littlejohn, 795 F.3d at 311),
and we decline to affirm the dismissal of Carris’s Title VII claim.
1
Further, one comparator driver’s alleged act of “exit[ing] the yard without reporting [the alleged
violation] to safety,” Compl. ¶ 16, might be viewed as intentional conduct.
4
However, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Carris’s state law claim. We review
de novo dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1). Cayuga Nation v. Tanner, 824 F.3d 321, 327 (2d Cir. 2016). A plaintiff
cannot bring a claim in federal court under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296 if she has already pursued that
claim with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“NYSDHR”). See Desardouin v. City
of Rochester, 708 F.3d 102, 106 (2d Cir. 2013); N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(9) (setting out election of
remedies). Here, the district court properly dismissed Carris’s state law claim: she filed a
complaint with the NYSDHR, which that body dismissed for lack of probable cause.
We have considered Carris’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. For
the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED as to its dismissal
of Carris’s claim under New York Executive Law § 296 and its denial of leave to amend the
complaint, 2 and VACATED as to its dismissal of Carris’s Title VII claim. The case is
REMANDED for further proceedings.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
2
Because First Student had already answered Carris’s original complaint, First Student’s motion
to dismiss the complaint should be construed as a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). See Patel v. Contemporary Classics of Beverly Hills, 259 F.3d 123, 126-27
(2d Cir. 2001).
5