Employees should not fear losing their jobs for speaking out against workplace discrimination. Allegedly, that was precisely what happened to one Staten Island medical assistant. Then she turned to Phillips & Associates. Now she has secured a significant victory in federal court: a district judge rejected the employer’s motion to dismiss the client’s federal retaliation and state-law claims earlier this month. If you have experienced retaliation at work for speaking out, you should contact our New York employment retaliation lawyers to discuss your options.
The client, N.M., was a Black woman and a certified medical assistant employed by a medical practice on Staten Island. Allegedly, the CMA began experiencing racial harassment in May 2022. At that time, two of the practice’s other CMAs physically pulled her into a hallway and started shouting at her “to the point that management had to intervene.”
At a subsequent meeting with a director and her supervisor, N.M. alleged that one of the other CMAs -- C.F. -- was motivated by anti-Black bias. Specifically, N.M. contended that C.F. “treated her differently than her co-workers, and that [C.F.] “did not speak to non-Black employees with the same hostility” with which [she] spoke to Black employees.” N.M. also complained that C.F. called her “negro,” which the latter did on several occasions.
Beginning in late 2022 and continuing until N.M.’s termination in early January 2024, the employer allegedly fabricated a “manufactured” series of disciplinary issues against N.M. According to N.M.’s lawsuit, these included things like multiple write-ups “for tasks that [N.M.] completed but was accused of not completing.”
After the employer fired her, N.M. sued for retaliation.
The Elements of Retaliation
Retaliation is an illegal employment practice under federal, New York State, and New York City law. To meet the federal (Title VII) standard of retaliation, an employee must show: (1) that she engaged in protected activity, (2) that the employer “was aware of” that activity, (3) that she was “subjected to a retaliatory action, or a series of retaliatory actions, that were materially adverse,” and (4) that a “causal connection” sufficiently linked the protected activity to the adverse employment action(s).
In N.M.’s case, the employer did not dispute that the CMA engaged in protected activity, that it knew about that activity, and that the woman’s termination was an adverse employment action. The sole basis for the employer’s defense was element four, namely, that N.M. lacked a causal connection between her allegations of racial bias and the employer’s termination of her employment.
One key factor that an employer may use to bolster a causal connection argument (or an employer may use to tend to disprove a causal connection) is something called “temporal proximity.” In the context of a causal connection in a retaliation case, this means how close in time the adverse action was to the protected activity.
In this case, the employer cited the dates of N.M.’s initial allegations of racial bias in May 2022 and in December 2023 (when the employer placed the CMA on leave before terminating her on Jan. 2). That gap—more than a year and one-half—was too long, the employer argued.
The court disagreed, noting that temporal proximity is not the only means of establishing a causal connection. An employee can also satisfy this element with “direct evidence of retaliatory intent.” The court then noted that N.M. had lodged no fewer than six complaints regarding racial discrimination with her supervisor and the practice’s HR department. The employer, however, took no action on any of them. The court also noted the wording of N.M.’s termination letter, which alleged “unprofessional and confrontational behavior towards department supervisors,” but did not specify what those behaviors were.
At the motion-to-dismiss phase, the CMA’s allegations were more than adequate, the court ruled. The court pointed out that, in past rulings, “complaints by an employer about a plaintiff’s attitude or demeanor have been considered” direct evidence of “retaliatory animus.”
Because the employee did not rely solely on temporal proximity to establish her causal connection, the long gap between her protected activity and the employer’s adverse action was not, by itself, enough to unravel her claim. She will now have the opportunity to seek a jury trial and compensation for the harm caused by the employer’s retaliation.
When you have been the target of discriminatory harassment at work, bringing it to your employer’s attention should result in the harasser experiencing punishment, not you. Too many times, though, the opposite occurs. If that has happened to you, the experienced New York City employment retaliation attorneys at Phillips & Associates PLLC can help. Our team has helped countless clients across the five boroughs -- just like this Staten Island woman -- in their pursuit of justice. To learn more, contact us online or at (866) 229-9441 to schedule a free and confidential consultation today.