Federal Judge Rejects Whole Foods' Bid to Toss Workplace Bias Suit
The grocer's summary judgment motion was denied by U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, allowing a former employee's pro se suit to proceed.
January 09, 2019 at 04:17 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Whole Foods was unable to shake a federal job discrimination suit filed by a pro se litigant, after U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York agreed to largely adopt a magistrate judge's report and recommendations.
Last May, Whole Foods asked for summary judgment on Title VII claims brought by Thierno Diallo, a Guinean immigrant who worked in the company's Midtown East store from September 2012 until December 2015. According to Diallo, he faced discrimination and a hostile work environment from co-workers and supervisors, many of whom were born outside of the U.S. themselves, because of his African heritage.
Things only got worse after he made a complaint to a supposedly confidential tip line, according to Diallo.
He claims he was improperly terminated in 2015 by a store supervisor and a manager he claimed specifically made regular, demeaning statements to him at work. Both sides agreed Diallo's employment was terminated in early December, after management found he had overstayed his lunch break a few days prior. Diallo acknowledged that was the case, saying that, after using the restroom, he went to pray. He was still fired, he claims.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kevin Fox recommended that Whole Foods' summary judgment motion be denied in its entirety, which the grocery chain objected to. Upon review, Engelmayer adopted key portions of Fox's recommendation, while diverging on state and city law claims that he ultimately agreed to dismissed.
Whole Foods argued that Diallo's actions, not his national origin, were the reasons for his firing. The grocer wrongly focused in its dispute of Fox's finding on the fact the unauthorized break was taken, rather than on whether the infraction was the legitimate reason for his firing, Engelmayer found. Diallo's claims of hostile attitudes toward him, as well as allegations that other team members also overstayed breaks and were not terminated, mean disputable facts remain that require resolution at trial.
Diallo's failure-to-promote claims were also aimed at by Whole Foods, who argued that Fox ignored the fact Diallo failed to identify which positions he applied for and didn't receive. But Engelmayer again adopted Fox's analysis, finding that there remain disputable facts that could show management was so hostile toward Diallo as to effectively deprive him of any reasonable hope of a promotion, or the opposite, thus requiring the suit to move forward.
Lastly, Whole Foods argued Diallo disputed Fox's finding that his hostile work environment and retaliation claims were not abandoned. The company argued the conduct Diallo claims amounted to little more than petty slights or stray remarks, without evidence that it was continuous—both threshold issues on the work environment claim. Likewise, Diallo faced no adverse action after making his complaint, defeating the retaliation claim, according to Whole Foods.
Engelmayer stood behind Fox's analysis, finding that Diallo's claims were substantial. The district judge did note that the hostile work environment claims “present[] a close question” of law in the Second Circuit, but agreed that a fact finder could potentially find for Diallo, while the tip line complaint and subsequent lack of promotion and firing could sway a jury toward the retaliation claim.
Engelmayer did break with Fox over New York state and city human rights law claims, agreeing with Whole Foods that Diallo is barred, as he may have potentially sought administrative relief and failed to show the court that that wasn't the case.
Diallo did not respond to a request for comment.
Whole Foods was represented by Greenberg Traurig shareholder Eric Sigda and of counsel Michael Slocum. Neither responded to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
- 2Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 3Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
- 4USPTO Director Kathi Vidal Announces Resignation Ahead of Administration Change
- 5As Gen AI Acceptance Grows, Lawyers Race to Mitigate Risks
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250