Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York grants Walmart’s motion for summary judgment against pro se plaintiff Beedemariam Kassaw. The court concludes that Kassaw’s claims involving alleged racial discrimination, retaliation, denial of promotion and full-time benefits, and unpaid wages or bonuses do not survive summary judgment, while denying Walmart’s motion to strike and denying its motion for sanctions without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff's New York Human Rights Law discrimination claims based on earlier failures to promote, denial of full-time benefits, and alleged hostile-work-environment conduct were timely and supported by evidence.
- Whether Plaintiff presented evidence that his termination was motivated by race discrimination or was a pretext for discrimination.
- Whether Plaintiff established a prima facie retaliation claim under the New York Human Rights Law based on his email complaint and anonymous ethics complaint.
- Whether Plaintiff established a breach-of-contract claim based on Walmart's full-time/part-time classification acknowledgment.
- Whether Plaintiff established an unpaid-wages claim based on Walmart's bonus programs.
- Whether Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's opposing statement of facts should be granted.
- Whether Rule 11 monetary sanctions were warranted for Plaintiff's filings.
Holdings
- Plaintiff's NYSHRL claims based on alleged failures to promote, denial of full-time benefits, and pre-March 3, 2020 conduct were time-barred. His timely hostile-work-environment allegations also failed because he did not provide evidence that the conduct was motivated by race or identify comparators treated differently.
- Plaintiff failed to establish that his termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of race discrimination or that Walmart's stated reason for termination was pretextual.
- Plaintiff failed to establish a retaliation claim because his email did not communicate opposition to race discrimination, his anonymous ethics complaint could not establish employer knowledge, and he failed to show pretext or causation.
- Plaintiff failed to establish a breach-of-contract claim because he did not show that the classification acknowledgment was a contract requiring Walmart to provide full-time benefits, and he failed to maintain the required hours.
- Plaintiff failed to establish an unpaid-wages claim because he offered no evidence that Walmart violated the applicable bonus plans or owed him the higher amounts claimed; discretionary bonuses do not constitute wages under New York Labor Law § 190(1).
- The motion to strike was denied because, despite substantial deficiencies in Plaintiff's opposing statement, the court independently reviewed the record in light of Plaintiff's pro se status.
- Monetary sanctions were not warranted at this time, although the court directed the Clerk to strike one filing and warned Plaintiff that future Rule 11 violations could result in sanctions.
Key quotations
“For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 54) is granted, Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiff’s counterstatement of facts (Dkt. 72) is denied, and Defendant’s motion for sanctions (Dkt. 86) is denied without prejudice.” (Introduction)
“Because Plaintiff concedes he did not mention race, discrimination, or harassment in his email to Mr. Bernard, his employer could not have reasonably understood that Plaintiff was complaining of discrimination based on his protected characteristic—in this case, his race.” (Discussion III.A.3)
“In sum, the Court concludes that the imposition of monetary sanctions is not warranted at this time.” (Discussion IV)
Factual background
Walmart hired Plaintiff, a Black male, as a part-time hourly sales associate in August 2018. Plaintiff alleged race discrimination, retaliation, denial of promotion and full-time benefits, breach of contract, and unpaid wages or bonuses. He received progressive disciplinary actions in March, April, and July 2020 and was terminated on September 23, 2020, after receiving the highest disciplinary level. Plaintiff had received bonus payments, including COVID-19 bonuses, but contended that he should have received amounts applicable to full-time employees.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed the action in New York Supreme Court, Monroe County, on March 3, 2023. Defendant removed it to the Western District of New York on March 29, 2023, invoking diversity jurisdiction and, alternatively, federal-question jurisdiction. After discovery, Defendant moved for summary judgment, to strike Plaintiff's opposing statement, and for sanctions. The court entered judgment for Defendant and closed the case.