09-3048-cv
Hogan v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUM M ARY O RDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A
SUM M ARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERM ITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY
FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. W HEN
CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER IN A DOCUM ENT FILED W ITH THIS COURT, A PARTY M UST CITE
EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATION
“SUM M ARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUM M ARY ORDER M UST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY
PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New
York, on the 30 th day of November, two thousand ten.
PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR.
REENA RAGGI,
PETER W. HALL,
Circuit Judges.*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE HOGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 09-3048-cv
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK,
Defendant-Appellee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: STEPHEN N. PREZIOSI, New York, New York.
APPEARING FOR APPELLEE: FREDERIC L. LIEBERMAN, JPMorgan Chase
Legal & Compliance Department, New York,
New York.
*
Judge Rosemary S. Pooler, originally assigned to this panel, did not participate in the
consideration of this appeal. After oral argument, Judge John M. Walker, Jr. was selected
to join the panel in accordance with Second Circuit Internal Operating Procedure E(b).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Joanna Seybert, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the judgment of the district court entered on June 15, 2009, is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff Catherine Hogan appeals from an award of summary judgment in favor of
her former employer, defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”), on her claims
brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29
U.S.C. § 621 et seq. We review a summary judgment ruling de novo, viewing the facts in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Havey v. Homebound Mortg., Inc.,
547 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir. 2008). While we will not uphold an award of summary judgment
in favor of Chase if the evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find for Hogan,
she must point to more than a “scintilla” of evidence in support of her claim to defeat
summary judgment. See id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). In applying these principles to this appeal, we
assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and the record of prior proceedings, which we
reference only as necessary to explain our decision.
We affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well-
reasoned opinion. See Hogan v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, No. 05 Civ. 5342, Memorandum
and Order (E.D.N.Y. June 15, 2009). We write briefly only to explain our independent
2
determination that Hogan has adduced no evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to
conclude that Chase discriminated against her on the basis of age.
1. Hostile Work Environment
Hogan’s hostile work environment claim is time-barred. Any act giving rise to such
a claim necessarily occurred on or before August 5, 2004, the date Hogan began medical
leave. Hogan did not file a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) until June 13, 2005, more than 300 days later, making her hostile
work environment claim untimely.2 See 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1)(B) (requiring aggrieved
employee to file administrative charge of discrimination within 300 days of occurrence of
challenged employment practice); see also Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen, Inc., 496 F.3d
229, 237-38 (2d Cir. 2007).
While Hogan contends that equitable tolling renders her claim timely, we are not
persuaded. Equitable tolling applies “where a plaintiff has been prevented in some
extraordinary way from exercising h[er] rights.” Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 86 F.3d 8, 12 (2d
Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Assuming arguendo that Hogan’s illness
might constitute such an extraordinary circumstance, equitable tolling is not warranted, as
2
We are not persuaded that the district court erred in construing Hogan’s ADEA claim
as comprising separate hostile work environment and constructive termination claims.
Although Hogan contends that her interaction with Chase human resources staff during her
internal job search and her constructive termination were part of an ongoing hostile work
environment, there is insufficient evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could
conclude that the action of the Chase employees responsible for arranging interviews was
motivated by a discriminatory animus.
3
Hogan was capable of returning to work in February 2005, and she offers no justification for
failing to file an EEOC charge at that time or at the time of her constructive termination two
months later. See Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 532 F.3d 101, 112 (2d Cir.
2008) (requiring employee seeking equitable tolling of ADEA limitations period to “act[]
with reasonable diligence during the time period she seeks to have tolled” (internal quotation
marks omitted)); Holowecki v. Fed. Express Corp., 440 F.3d 558, 563 (2d Cir. 2006)
(“ADEA time limits are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for
particular litigants.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
2. Constructive Termination
In challenging the district court’s award of summary judgment on her constructive
termination claim, Hogan submits that Chase failed to articulate a legitimate non-
discriminatory reason for its failure to assist her in obtaining a new job position, its burden
under the second step of analysis pursuant to McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
792 (1973). See Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93, 106 (2d Cir. 2010);
D’Cunha v. Genovese/Eckerd Corp., 479 F.3d 193, 194-95 (2d Cir. 2007). Even assuming
that Hogan established prima facie age discrimination in her constructive termination, Chase
carried its burden by adducing evidence demonstrating that, under Chase’s disability leave
policy, an employee who remains on disability leave longer than twelve weeks but less than
twenty-six weeks forfeits her job protection rights and can reclaim her old position only if
it has not been filled. If the position has been filled, the employee is “eligible to conduct
4
[her] own 60-day internal job search.” Failure to secure another position within the relevant
time period, however, results in termination. Neither party disputes that Hogan remained on
disability leave longer than twelve weeks, that her position was filled after she lost her job
protection rights, and that she failed to obtain another position with Chase during the 60-day
job search period. Under these circumstances, Chase’s disability leave policy provides a
legitimate non-discriminatory justification for Hogan’s constructive termination. As Hogan
points to no evidence indicating that persons younger than she were hired for the positions
she identified but did not obtain, or that Chase’s human resources staff denied her
opportunities to interview for open positions as a result of age-based animus, no reasonable
juror could conclude that the disability leave policy was a pretext for discrimination, and that
Hogan’s age was the “but-for” cause of her constructive termination. See Gross v. FBL Fin.
Servs., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2343, 2352 (2009) (requiring plaintiff asserting disparate-treatment
claim under ADEA to establish that age was “but-for” cause of alleged adverse employment
action and not merely contributing or motivating factor); see also Gorzynski v. JetBlue
Airways Corp., 596 F.3d at 106. Accordingly, we affirm the award of summary judgment
in Chase’s favor.3
3
Although Hogan asserts that the relevant adverse employment action was Chase’s
failure to assist her in securing another job, rather than its decision to terminate her, the
disability leave policy makes clear that an employee’s internal job search is “[her] own.”
Further, Hogan points to no evidence indicating that Chase’s practice was to assist others,
particularly those younger than Hogan, in obtaining further employment. Accordingly, the
argument is without merit.
While some circuits have recognized a “cat’s paw” theory of liability in employment
5
3. Conclusion
We have considered Hogan’s remaining arguments on appeal and conclude that they
are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the June 15, 2009 judgment is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, Clerk of Court
discrimination cases, see, e.g., Roberson v. Alltel Info. Servs., 373 F.3d 647, 653 (5th Cir.
2004) (“To invoke the cat’s paw analysis, [a plaintiff] must submit evidence sufficient to
establish two conditions: (1) that a co-worker exhibited discriminatory animus, and (2) that
the same co-worker possessed leverage, or exerted influence, over the titular decisionmaker.”
(internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2688-89 (2009)
(Alito, J., concurring) (citing cases and noting that the Supreme Court has never resolved
“the circumstances in which an employer may be held liable based on the discriminatory
intent of subordinate employees who influence but do not make the ultimate employment
decision”), we have no occasion to consider the applicability of that theory to the facts of this
case. It was not explicitly argued, nor were facts developed to demonstrate a link between
evidence of Dennis Chuang’s age-based discriminatory animus and Hogan’s post-illness
interview schedule set-up by Nancy Panetta.
6