Susan AUGUSTUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AHRC NASSAU, Defendant-Appellee, 596 F. App'x 41

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant Susan Augustus, proceeding pro se, appeals from the judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissing her Title VII employment discrimination claim and her Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) retaliation claim following a bench trial. On appeal, Augustus challenges the district court’s rulings on both claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

Following a bench trial, we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Coppola, 85 F.3d 1015, 1019 (2d Cir.1996). Augustus argues that the district court erred in concluding that she did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant terminated her because of her race. After a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action. Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981).

If the employer is successful, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove “by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.” Id.

We conclude that it was not error for the district court to find that defendant established a nondiscriminatory reason for her termination by producing evidence that Augustus repeatedly failed to communicate with her supervisors, to document client services, and to account for her time — which was identified as an important part of her job, given the significant amount of time she was required to spend in the field meeting with clients. Augustus attempted to show pretext by demonstrating that she was disciplined more harshly than other employees, but these comparisons are in-apposite.

The district court found that no other employee received as many citations as Augustus, and Augustus therefore could not show that her punishment was disproportionate to her infractions. Unlike Augustus, the other employees did not repeatedly violate the rules or fail to communicate with their supervisors.

Given the evidence of Augustus’s repeated failures to complete important aspects of her job and the dearth of evidence supporting the existence of a discriminatory animus, the district court did not err in finding that Augustus did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that her defendant’s nondiscriminatory justification was merely a pretext for racial discrimination. Nothing in the record, moreover, supports Augustus’s claim that she was terminated in retaliation for her advocacy on behalf of a specific client.

Although Augustus was qualified for her position and was the subject of an adverse employment action, she failed to show that “the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of retaliatory intent.” Potenza v. City of New York, 365 F.3d 165, 168 (2d Cir.2004). On the contrary, the evidence at trial showed that Augustus’s supervisors were supportive of her advocacy with respect to that client. The district court therefore did not err in ruling that Augustus failed to establish a prima facie retaliation claim under the FMLA.

We have considered Augustus’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.