Yolanda D. Tyson v. Town of Ramapo, New York, et al.

A n employee mak ing a claim of employ ment discrimination must satisfy the four elements set forth in McDonnel-Douglas. Our Circuit Courts have defined these as “non-onerous.” Here, though she presented ample evidence showing she was treated less favorably than her Caucasian comparators, the courts below held that Petitioner failed to meet the fourth prong of this test. An employer defending against a claim of employment discrimination is required to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged adverse action. Here, while it erroneously held that Petitioner failed to meet the fourth prong of the prima facie test establishing racial discrimination, the district court sustained as legitimate and non-discriminatory Respondent’s basis for its adverse action. However, the reason adduced was patently unlawful and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit credited this reason and determined that Petitioner was not similarly situated to Caucasian comparators relying on this patently unlawful ground to hold that she both failed to meet the elements of prima facie case and, if she had, Respondent had a non-pretextual basis for its adverse action. The questions presented are: May an employer dispute plaintiff’s prima facie case of racial discrimination by disputing the similarly situated status of comparators on a ground made unlawful by the Americans with Disabilities Act?