Summary
denying summary judgment to defendant on failure-to-promote claim where "[m]aterial issues of fact exist as to the precise nature of the application process" and "the significance to be accorded to the statements of an applicant's supervisor" that the plaintiff should not apply.
Summary of this case from Gupta v. City of BridgeportOpinion
98 Civ. 1172 (AKH).
December 7, 2000.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Robert Bunch, a laboratory technician in the physics department at Queens College, brought suit against the City University of New York pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1983 and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq., alleging racial discrimination. After holding oral arguments on May 8, 2000 and September 21, 2000, on defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, this Court held, in an Order dated September 28, 2000, that plaintiff's claims under sections 1981 and 1983 were barred by defendant's Eleventh Amendment imm unity, but that Plaintiff's Title VII claims as to denial of promotion and retaliation remained as causes of action in the case, requiring trial.
Defendant filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 5, 2000. In its Motion, defendant contends that the Court erred in allowing the failure to promote claim and the retaliation claim to survive summary judgm ent. Defendant contends that the Court erred by not fully conducting the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine burden shifting analysis, as explicated by the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit. In particular, defendant complains that the third step of this analysis — that upon defendant's articulation of a non-discriminatory reason for the employment action, the presumption of discrimination arising with the demonstration of a prima facie case drops from the analysis and for the case to continue, the plaintiff must then come forward with evidence that the non-discriminatory reason is a mere pretext for actual discrimination — was not conducted in the Court's opinion concerning summary judgm ent.
I am mindful that the ultimate responsibility to come forward with summary judgment evidence that demonstrates that the employment action was motivated by discriminatory animus — "in short, . . . that the evidence, taken as a whole, supports a sufficient rational inference of discrimination," Weinstock v. Columbia University, 224 F.3d 33, 42 (2nd Cir. 2000) — rests w ith the plaintiff. I hold, as I previously held in my Decision and Order dated September 28, 2000, that plaintiff has carried his burden to demonstrate sufficient facts to support a rational inference of discrimination as the basis for the City University's decision not to promote.
I also hold again that an issue of fact exists regarding whether or not plaintiff was offered diminished opportunity for overtime work subsequent to the time he began to seek redress for the alleged discriminatory employment decision, in retaliation for his seeking redress. Thus, this issue remains for trial as w ell.
Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied in all respects. The parties are directed to appear for a pre-trial conference on January 5, 2001, at 9:30 a.m. to discuss the status and further progress of the case.
SO ORDERED.