## Facts

- Christine Castro, a Hispanic woman in her mid-forties with asthma, worked as a union organizer beginning in 1986.
- The organizer job involved mostly indoor desk and meeting work, with occasional outdoor duties such as leading picket lines.
- Castro’s physician advised her to avoid extreme temperatures because they aggravated her asthma; this was her only asserted work restriction.
- Castro testified she was willing and able to perform her duties and sought only the accommodation of not being required to stand outdoors in extreme heat or cold.
- Castro alleged the union failed to accommodate her asthma and discriminated against her based on race/national origin, age, and disability, and retaliated after she filed an EEOC complaint.
- She also asserted state-law claims including fraud, breach of contract, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, including an incident where Steve Frankel allegedly threatened her while moving his chair closer.

## Issues

1. Whether Castro’s asthma substantially limited a major life activity so as to constitute a disability under the ADA.
2. Whether the evidence created a triable issue of discrimination or hostile work environment based on race or national origin under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
3. Whether alleged age-related remarks supported an ADEA claim sufficient to survive summary judgment.
4. Whether Castro produced evidence of a causal connection between protected activity and adverse action to support retaliation claims.
5. Whether the record supported state-law claims for fraud, breach of contract, assault (including imminence of threatened contact), and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on all federal claims (Title VII, § 1981, ADA, ADEA).
- The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on the New York Human Rights Law claims.
- The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on the state-law tort and contract claims, including assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The court denied Castro’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- ADA coverage requires proof that an impairment substantially limits a major life activity; a narrow limitation (e.g., avoiding extreme temperatures) that does not materially restrict breathing or broad employment opportunities is insufficient.
- Title VII/§ 1981 disparate treatment requires evidence permitting a reasonable inference of discriminatory intent; hostile work environment requires conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions.
- Under the ADEA, isolated age-related remarks, without evidence tying age to the challenged employment decisions, are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
- Retaliation claims require proof of causation; a significant temporal gap and lack of other linking evidence defeats an inference that adverse action was because of protected activity.
- New York assault requires intentional conduct placing the plaintiff in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact; threats of harm at an undefined future time do not satisfy imminence.
- New York intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct exceeding all bounds of decency; ordinary workplace disputes and non-imminent threats generally do not meet that standard.

## Conclusion

The court entered judgment for the union and individual defendants, holding that Castro’s asthma did not qualify as an ADA disability on the record presented, her discrimination and retaliation theories lacked evidence sufficient for a jury to find unlawful motive or causation, and her state-law contract and tort claims failed as a matter of law, including for lack of imminence (assault) and lack of extreme and outrageous conduct (intentional infliction of emotional distress).


Castro v. Loc. 1199, Nat'l Health & Hum. Servs. Emps. Union, 964 F. Supp. 719 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)