CUNY Wins in Castro v. City Univ. Discrimination and Retaliation Case

From February 14, 2014, through October 8, 2014, Jose Castro was employed by the City University of New York (CUNY) as a peace officer at its New York City College of Technology. His employment was subject to a one-year probationary period. In June 2015, Castro commenced legal action against CUNY, asserting several violations under the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law Article 15). He alleged employment discrimination based on his race, age, national origin, and religion, as well as the existence of a hostile work environment. Castro also brought a claim of unlawful retaliation.

According to the complaint, Castro was of Puerto Rican descent, over 40 years old, and a practicing Christian. He stated that CUNY had taken adverse employment actions against him and that such actions occurred under circumstances that gave rise to an inference of discrimination.

Legal framework and required proof

Under Executive Law § 296(1), an employer is prohibited from refusing to hire or discharging an individual—or otherwise discriminating in terms and conditions of employment—based on characteristics such as age, race, creed, national origin, or religion. In cases involving claims of employment discrimination under this statute, a plaintiff must establish four elements: (1) membership in a protected class, (2) qualification for the position held, (3) experience of an adverse employment action, and (4) circumstances suggesting discriminatory motive.

To support this fourth element, a plaintiff may show that they were treated less favorably than similarly situated individuals outside their protected group. Though exact similarity in circumstances is not required, there must be a reasonably close resemblance in material respects.

Once a plaintiff presents a prima facie case, a defendant can rebut it by offering legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the adverse employment action. The burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to establish that the offered reasons were merely pretextual.

Summary judgment and the court’s findings

CUNY moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims. The institution challenged the sufficiency of Castro’s evidence concerning the fourth element of a discrimination claim. Specifically, CUNY maintained that Castro's termination did not occur under circumstances that gave rise to an inference of discrimination.

CUNY submitted documentation and testimony supporting its assertion that the reasons for Castro’s termination were legitimate and non-discriminatory. It also demonstrated the absence of any material issue of fact regarding whether its reasons were pretextual. The court determined that this satisfied the defendant’s burden on summary judgment. Castro did not offer sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact in response. The court noted that it was immaterial whether the reasons given by CUNY were wise, unwise, or trivial, so long as they were not discriminatory.

Retaliation and hostile work environment claims

Castro also alleged unlawful retaliation under Executive Law § 296(7), asserting that his termination followed a complaint he made about his superior. The court examined whether this complaint constituted a protected activity under the statute, which requires that the complaint relate to discriminatory practices prohibited by the law. CUNY established that the complaint did not concern such practices. As a result, the court concluded that Castro had not engaged in protected activity, a necessary element for a retaliation claim.

In addition, Castro asserted that he was subjected to a hostile work environment. CUNY submitted evidence to show that any remarks made by supervisors or coworkers were not severe or pervasive enough to interfere with Castro’s work. The court held that this was sufficient to meet the institution’s burden. Castro failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the behavior he described created a hostile or abusive working environment.

Final ruling

The Supreme Court of New York, Kings County, granted CUNY's motion for summary judgment on all claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this order. The court found that Castro did not present sufficient evidence to establish discriminatory intent, engage in protected activity under the law, or demonstrate a hostile work environment.

Help with employment discrimination cases

If you’ve experienced discrimination, harassment, or retaliation at work, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC handles cases involving wrongful termination, hostile work environments, and other unlawful treatment. Reach out to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your claim.