Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis v. Bombardier Transp. Holdings (USA), Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

July 22, 2015

NATASHA DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION HOLDINGS (USA) INC., Defendant-Appellee

Submitted March 6, 2015

Plaintiff-Appellant Natasha Davis brought claims of disability-based employment discrimination and retaliation against her former employer, Defendant-Appellee Bombardier Transportation Holdings (USA) Inc. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Mauskopf, J.) granted Bombardier's motion for summary judgment, finding, in relevant part, that Davis's demotion-based claim was time barred. On appeal, Davis argues that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 applies to and revives this otherwise time-barred claim. We AFFIRM.

Nadira S. Stewart, Charmaine M. Stewart, Stewart Law Firm, PLLC, Rosedale, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Celena R. Mayo, Ricki E. Roer, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: WESLEY, LIVINGSTON, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Page 267

Wesley, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-Appellant Natasha Davis brought claims of disability-based employment discrimination and retaliation against her former employer, Defendant-Appellee Bombardier Transportation Holdings (USA) Inc. (" Bombardier" ). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Mauskopf, J.) granted Bombardier's motion for summary judgment, finding, in relevant part, that Davis's demotion-based claim was time barred. On appeal, Davis argues that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 applies to and revives this otherwise time-barred claim.

For the reasons below, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

BACKGROUND[1]

Bombardier built and operates the Air Train, a computer-driven train that transports

Page 268

passengers between major transportation hubs in New York City and the terminals of John F. Kennedy International Airport. In 2002, knowing that Natasha Davis was a Type I diabetic, Bombardier hired her as a Customer Service Agent. Davis never actually worked as a Customer Service Agent because Bombardier altered the Customer Service Agent position prior to Davis's commencement date. Bombardier renamed the position Air Train Agent (" ATA" ) and separated it into two categories: ATA I and ATA II. Employees in both positions had similar responsibilities, but the ATA II job title carried the additional responsibility of manually operating the Air Train during emergencies. In 2004, Davis became an ATA II.

On January 25, 2007, Davis went on disability leave for diabetic retinopathy. Davis underwent at least six eye surgeries during her leave. In August 2007, Davis notified Bombardier that she was prepared to return to work, and she submitted to a return-to-work physical. The parties dispute whether Bombardier routinely administered this physical to employees who had been on leave for more than 90 days. Bombardier informed Davis that she failed the physical and eye exams, but Davis contends she passed. Bombardier thereafter determined that Davis could no longer operate the Air Train in an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.