| Silvis v City of New York |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03935 [95 AD3d 665] |
| May 22, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Susan Silvis, Appellant, v City of New York et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), forrespondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered April 13, 2011,which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's action for alleged discrimination was properly dismissed since none of theemployment actions complained of by plaintiff was an adverse employment action (see Messinger v Girl Scouts of U.S.A.,16 AD3d 314, 314-315 [2005]). Plaintiff's transfer from the position of literacy coach to aclassroom teacher was "merely an alteration of her responsibilities," and not an adverseemployment action. Apart from a change in the nature of her duties, plaintiff "retained the termsand conditions of her employment, and her salary remained the same" (Matter of Block v Gatling, 84 AD3d445, 445 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 709 [2011]). Plaintiff's contention that she wasdiscriminated against based on evidence that, after her transfer back to the classroom teachingposition, she was subjected to a relentless stream of reprimands is not sufficient to establish aprima facie case of discrimination. Notwithstanding the frequent reprimands, she received asatisfactory end-of-year performance rating, and none of the reprimands resulted in any reductionin pay or privileges (id.). Nor can plaintiff establish a claim of discrimination based on afailure to reasonably accommodate her disabling condition. Plaintiff concedes that defendantsprovided her with a "satisfactory" accommodation, in the form of moving her classroom from thefourth to the second floor, with "no escort duty."
Plaintiff has similarly failed to show that her "workplace was 'permeated with"discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult" that [was] "sufficiently severe or pervasive toalter the [terms or] conditions of" ' " employment, so as to make out a claim for hostile workenvironment (Ferrer v New York StateDiv. of Human Rights, 82 AD3d 431 [2011], quoting [*2]Harris v Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 US 17, 21 [1993]). Plaintiffcomplained of only a single potentially derogatory remark related to her age and did notcomplain of any remarks regarding her disability (Ferrer, 82 AD3d 431).Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Freedman, Catterson, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.