## Facts

- Diane M. Puricelli and Charles E. Hughes were claims employees of Continental Insurance Company, which was acquired by Continental Casualty Company (CNA) in 1995.
- The acquisition period involved restructuring, new supervisors, and pressure to meet new methods, tools, and goals.
- In 1996, CNA demoted Puricelli to a position she had previously held.
- In 1996, CNA reassigned Hughes to different duties without reducing his pay; Hughes characterized the new assignment as a “dead-end” job.
- Both plaintiffs left CNA later in 1996 after finding other employment.
- Plaintiffs alleged age-based discrimination and harassment, relying in part on critical or disparaging remarks about older workers and criticism tied to changes in workplace standards.
- CNA asserted legitimate business and performance-based reasons for its actions and disputed that Hughes’s reassignment limited advancement, citing promotions from that unit.
- CNA moved for summary judgment and also moved to strike portions of plaintiffs’ affidavits and related summary-judgment submissions as inadmissible or procedurally defective.

## Issues

1. Whether Puricelli and Hughes produced sufficient evidence under the ADEA and NYSHRL to permit a reasonable jury to infer that CNA’s actions were motivated by age.
2. Whether Puricelli’s demotion and Hughes’s reassignment and alleged working conditions constituted actionable adverse employment actions and/or constructive discharge.
3. Whether plaintiffs’ summary-judgment submissions contained admissible, non-conclusory evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact, and whether improper materials should be struck.

## Decision

- The court granted CNA’s motions for summary judgment against both plaintiffs and dismissed the ADEA and NYSHRL claims.
- The court treated Puricelli’s demotion as an adverse employment action, but held she failed to present evidence from which a jury could find age discrimination or pretext.
- The court held Hughes did not show an objectively material adverse change from his reassignment given unchanged pay and evidence undermining the “dead-end” characterization.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ constructive-discharge theory because the record did not show objectively intolerable conditions tied to age-based hostility.
- The court granted the motions to strike in part, disregarding affidavit statements and related submissions that were conclusory, hearsay, or not based on personal knowledge.

## Legal Principles

- ADEA and NYSHRL discrimination claims are evaluated under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework; after an employer articulates legitimate reasons, the plaintiff must offer evidence from which a jury could find those reasons are pretext for age discrimination.
- A demotion is a materially adverse employment action; a reassignment without pay reduction requires objective proof of materially worse terms, conditions, or career prospects.
- Isolated age-related comments not tied to the relevant decision-makers or the challenged decisions generally do not, by themselves, create a triable inference of discrimination or establish pretext.
- Constructive discharge requires working conditions so objectively intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign; dissatisfaction with restructuring or management style is insufficient without evidence connecting intolerability to unlawful discrimination.
- On summary judgment, courts consider only admissible evidence; conclusory assertions, hearsay, and statements lacking personal knowledge do not create a genuine dispute of material fact.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for the employer because, even assuming an adverse action as to Puricelli’s demotion, plaintiffs failed to present admissible evidence linking CNA’s decisions to age or showing that CNA’s stated performance and business reasons were a pretext, and the record did not meet the demanding standard for constructive discharge.


Puricelli v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 103 F. Supp. 2d 91 (N.D.N.Y. 1999)