How the Court Ruled

If you chose B, you sided with the court in Herron v. New York City Transit, No. 22-989-cv (2d Cir. 06/30/23), which held that the worker failed to show that the Authority’s explanation for firing him was disingenuous.

The court pointed out that the Transit Authority formally investigated the employee and determined that he engaged in unauthorized dual employment even after the Authority brought it to his attention. The employee “never disputed that he continued to engage in dual employment after his supervisors denied his request to do so,” the court wrote.

The court rejected the employee’s argument that a supervisor’s remark about being "out sick all the time" showed the stated reason for terminating him was not genuine. The evidence showed that the supervisor was unaware of the employee’s anxiety disorder at the time of the remark and that the remark referred to his general attendance record.

The court also rejected the employee’s claim that the Authority’s more favorable treatment of a coworker showed its state reason for firing him was pretextual. The coworker was not an appropriate person to compare him to, the court stated, because she didn’t have his attendance problems and the employer retroactively authorized her dual employment.

The court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the Transit Authority.

Learn more! Subscribe to Simply Research

Share This Article: