Concha v. Purchase Coll. State Univ. of New York

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Valentin Concha (“Plaintiff”) brings this action pursuant to Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”) against Defendants Purchase College State University of New York (“SUNY Purchase”), Thomas J. Schwarz, George Halliday, Kathleen Farrell, Ricardo Espinales, Edward Tighe, and Joel Aure (collectively, the “Defendants”) alleging employment discrimination and retaliation. (Docket No. 1). Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) and for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Motion”). (Docket No. 40). Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ Motion, (Docket No. 50), and Defendants replied, (Docket No. 53). For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion is granted.¹I. BACKGROUNDA. Procedural BackgroundOn November 2, 2017, Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants seeking damages for race and national origin discrimination and retaliation relating to his probationary employment at SUNY Purchase. (Docket No. 1). Following the completion of discovery, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment, (Docket No. 40), accompanied by a memorandum of law, (“Def. Br.”) (Docket No. 45), four declarations with exhibits, (Docket Nos. 41-44), and a statement of facts pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, (“Def. 56.1″) (Docket No. 46). Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Defendants’ Motion, (“Pl. Br.”) (Docket No. 50), accompanied by two declarations with exhibits, (Docket Nos. 48-49), and a counterstatement of facts pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, (“Pl. 56.1″) (Docket No. 47). Defendants filed a reply memorandum of law, (“Def. Reply”) (Docket No. 53), and a response to Plaintiff’s counterstatement, (“Def. 56.1 Reply”) (Docket No. 54).B. FactsThe following facts are gathered from the parties’ Rule 56.1 statements and counterstatements, the exhibits attached to the parties’ submissions, and the declarations submitted by the parties in support of their contentions.² The facts are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party. Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20, 30 (2d Cir. 2018). The following facts are not in dispute, unless otherwise noted.i. The PartiesPlaintiff, who self-identifies as Peruvian, worked at SUNY Purchase from November 7, 2015 to February 17, 2016 in the Grounds Department. (Def. 56.1 at 1). During Plaintiff’s employment, Thomas Schwarz was the President of SUNY Purchase. (Id. at 3). At all relevant times, Kathleen Farrell was the Director of Human Resources, (id. at 5), Ricardo Espinales was the Assistant Director of Human Resources, (id. at 6), and Edward Tighe was a Human Resources Labor Relations Specialist at SUNY Purchase, (id. at 7). Joel Aure was the Chief Diversity Officer, Title IX Coordinator, and Affirmative Action Officer at SUNY Purchase. (Id. at 8). George Halliday was the Supervisor of the Grounds Department during Plaintiff’s employment. (Id. at 4).ii. Plaintiff’s Employment at SUNY PurchaseIn February 2015, Plaintiff applied to be a Campus Worker in the Grounds Department at SUNY Purchase. (Def. 56.1 at 9). The position entailed performing a variety of unskilled tasks related to the operation of the campus, including grounds, parking, and maintenance services. (Id. at 10). Assistant Director Ricardo Espinales offered the Campus Worker position to Plaintiff, (id. at 15), and Plaintiff started working at SUNY Purchase on a probationary basis on November 7, 2015, (id. at 16).³ Probationary employees served a probationary period of up to 52 weeks and received evaluations approximately every two months. (Id. at

28-29). Halliday was responsible for performing evaluations of Grounds Department employees, including Plaintiff. (Id. at 30).During Plaintiff’s employment at SUNY Purchase, there were thirteen employees in the Grounds Department, eight of whom were Hispanic. (Def. 56.1 at 18). Halliday testified that Plaintiff’s co-workers characterized Plaintiff’s work performance negatively and complained about him. (Halliday Dep.⁴ at 83-84). For example, Santiago Linares, who was a Senior Grounds Worker, told Halliday that Plaintiff was not a good worker and was unwilling to perform the typical work that employment in the Grounds Department entailed.⁵ (Linares Dec.⁶ at