January 5, 2026 • 25 mins
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
Have you ever wondered how a long-term employee can suddenly find themselves facing sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation, especially when they’ve dedicated their life to education? In this riveting episode of Employee Survival Guide®, host Mark Carey takes you through the compelling case of McConkie versus the Churchill School and Center, where ageism and homophobia collide in a dramatic narrative that serves as a cautionary tale for every employee navigating their career. Join us as we dissect the complexities of employment law, shedding light on the critical standards Dennis McConkie must meet to survive a motion to dismiss his claims of sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation.
This episode dives deep into the intricate dynamics of workplace culture, revealing how a hostile work environment can manifest through repeated derogatory comments and actions that establish a pattern of bias. We explore the legal nuances surrounding age discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination, offering insights into the different standards of proof required for each type of claim under federal and state laws. With McConkie's abrupt termination at 62 as the backdrop, we discuss the importance of documentation and the potential consequences of workplace bias, emphasizing that every employee has rights that deserve protection.
As we navigate the murky waters of employment disputes, this episode highlights essential strategies for employee empowerment and survival. From severance negotiations to understanding your employment contract, we arm you with the knowledge to advocate for yourself effectively. Whether you’re dealing with discrimination in the workplace, navigating remote work challenges, or facing retaliation for speaking up, this episode is packed with valuable insights. Discover how to recognize the signs of discrimination, understand your rights, and take actionable steps to ensure a fair and equitable workplace.
Don't let workplace issues dictate your career trajectory! Tune in to Employee Survival Guide® and equip yourself with the tools you need to thrive in any work environment. Your survival depends on it, and we’re here to help you navigate the complexities of employment law, advocating for your rights every step of the way. Join us for a thought-provoking discussion that could change the way you view your career and empower you to take charge of your professional journey!
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_01 (00:18):
Welcome to the Deep Dive.
We're here to take a trulycomplex stack of source
material, distill the vitalnuggets, and hand you the
synthesized knowledge you needto be instantly well informed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:29):
Today we're wading into a workplace drama that
spans three decades.
SPEAKER_01 (00:34):
And it's set in this very specialized high-stakes
environment of Manhattan K-12School.
SPEAKER_00 (00:40):
Aaron Ross Powell The case is McConkie versus the
Churchill School and Center.
And this is, you know, more thanjust a lawsuit.
It's the abrupt, reallycontentious end of a 30-year
teaching career.
SPEAKER_01 (00:49):
Aaron Powell We're looking at a long-term educator
who, at 62 years old, issuddenly terminated.
And he alleges it has nothing todo with performance.
SPEAKER_00 (00:57):
Aaron Powell No.
He says it's all aboutlong-simmering ageism,
homophobia, and criticallyretaliation.
SPEAKER_01 (01:03):
Aaron Powell It's really the mechanics of what
happens when an employee finallyspeaks up.
You shared the court documentswith us, and our mission today
is very specific.
We're diving right into thefederal court's opinion and
order from July of 2025.
SPEAKER_00 (01:14):
Aaron Powell That's right.
And this document, it determinesthe specific factual and legal
thresholds that McConkey claimsneed to cross just to survive.
SPEAKER_01 (01:22):
Just to survive.
So this isn't a verdict.
SPEAKER_00 (01:25):
Not at all.
We're analyzing the crucialopening move in a federal
lawsuit.
It's called a motion to dismiss.
The school is basically arguingeven if everything McConkie says
is true.
SPEAKER_01 (01:36):
He still doesn't have a legal case.
SPEAKER_00 (01:38):
Exactly.
They're saying he hasn't met theminimum legal standard to even
proceed.
SPEAKER_01 (01:43):
So we're testing this idea of plausibility.
I mean, did he provide enoughfactual content to raise a
reasonable expectation that, youknow, discovery emails, reviews
will actually uncover evidence?
SPEAKER_00 (01:56):
Aaron Powell Precisely.
It's the minimal burden just toget through the door.
The court has to accept all hisfactual allegations as true for
this stage.
SPEAKER_01 (02:03):
Aaron Ross Powell And draw every reasonable
inference in his favor.
SPEAKER_00 (02:06):
Aaron Ross Powell If the claims are plausible, the
case continues.
If they're too vague, tooneutral, they get dismissed.
SPEAKER_01 (02:11):
Aaron Ross Powell Okay, so let's unpack this.
We're talking about claims forage discrimination under the
ADEA.
SPEAKER_00 (02:15):
Sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII,
which, you know, follows the bigBostock ruling.
SPEAKER_01 (02:20):
And then retaliation.
All under federal, sturt, andcity laws.
So we're going to dissect whichclaims made it past that minimal
bar and why others didn't.
SPEAKER_00 (02:28):
Aaron Powell And sometimes for very subtle
reasons.
SPEAKER_01 (02:31):
To really understand the stakes here, we have to
start with the plaintiffhimself, Dennis McConkie.
This was not a short-termemployee.
SPEAKER_00 (02:39):
Not at all.
His career at the ChurchillSchool was the centerpiece of
his professional life for nearlythree decades.
SPEAKER_01 (02:45):
And his background is important, right?
It establishes him as aprofessional.
SPEAKER_00 (02:49):
A highly qualified one.
He has a Bachelor of Sciencefrom Skidmore in 84, an MFA from
UPenn in 1990.
He'd already taught at thecollege level before even
joining Churchill.
SPEAKER_01 (03:00):
He joined them in December of 1992, started as an
assistant art teacher for K-8.
This is a specialized school,right, for students with
learning disabilities.
SPEAKER_00 (03:08):
It is, and he moved up quickly.
By 1995, he's the head artteacher and head of the art
department.
SPEAKER_01 (03:14):
And his role just kept growing with the school.
SPEAKER_00 (03:16):
Right.
When they added the high schoolin 99, his role expanded to
K-12.
This wasn't just a teacher.
He was, I mean, central to theirarts curriculum.
SPEAKER_01 (03:25):
That kind of tenure usually means respect,
stability.
SPEAKER_00 (03:28):
You would think so.
He even took on administrativeroles.
In 2006, he was appointed adean, leading a high school
grade.
SPEAKER_01 (03:36):
And this is where Jason Wallen comes in, the man
who becomes central to thiswhole conflict.
SPEAKER_00 (03:41):
Yes.
Wallen was appointed a dean atthe same time, and during that
period, he actually referred toMcConkie as the best of the
deans.
SPEAKER_01 (03:49):
That's a remarkable detail.
It shows a history ofcompetence.
SPEAKER_00 (03:52):
It does.
But McConkie also points to thissubtle decline in his status
starting around 2012.
He lost the title, head of theart department.
And the reason was the schoolwas supposedly too small for
official department heads, buthis responsibilities, you know,
they didn't really change.
SPEAKER_01 (04:11):
So from a legal perspective, a plaintiff would
flag that detail years later tosuggest, you know, this erosion
of his status started way beforethe actual firing.
SPEAKER_00 (04:19):
Exactly.
It sets the stage.
Yeah.
So by the time we get to October2022, when he's fired, he has
almost 30 years at this school.
He's 62 years old, firmly in theprotected age class.
SPEAKER_01 (04:29):
And he was the oldest teacher in the high
school?
SPEAKER_00 (04:31):
And the second oldest in the entire school.
SPEAKER_01 (04:33):
The court recognizes that a decision made in 2022
often has roots that go wayback.
SPEAKER_00 (04:38):
Aaron Powell Yes.
And McConkie's complaint detailsthese really specific older
incidents.
Even though they're outside thestatute of limitations, the
court said they provide crucial,relevant background evidence.
SPEAKER_01 (04:50):
Okay, so what's the first one?
SPEAKER_00 (04:52):
Let's start with the earliest and you know maybe the
most shocking.
The 2001 dry erase incident.
SPEAKER_01 (04:59):
Right.
SPEAKER_00 (04:59):
Late one day, a distraught student tells
McConkie that a homophobic slurhad been written on Jason
Wallen's dry erase board.
SPEAKER_01 (05:07):
The actual slur was Dennis is a fucking fag.
SPEAKER_00 (05:09):
And the student said it had been up there visible all
day.
SPEAKER_01 (05:12):
So McConkie confronted Wallen about it.
SPEAKER_00 (05:15):
He did.
He asked him why he hadn'terased it.
And Wallen's defense was simplythat he hadn't noticed it.
SPEAKER_01 (05:20):
Which McConkie sees as what?
Tolerance?
Complicity.
SPEAKER_00 (05:23):
Aaron Ross Powell He sees it as Wallen's initial
indifference to homophobia.
And that's incredibly importantcontext because Wallen later
becomes his direct supervisor.
SPEAKER_01 (05:32):
And as we'll get into, he weaponizes this exact
incident.
SPEAKER_00 (05:35):
He does.
Then just a year later, 2002,the second major incident
happens.
SPEAKER_01 (05:39):
This one involves a photograph.
SPEAKER_00 (05:41):
A photo of McConkie's male partner on his
desk.
Just a simple desk photo.
The principal at the time, GlennCorwin, noticed it.
And it led to a formal meeting.
SPEAKER_01 (05:51):
A meeting over a photo.
SPEAKER_00 (05:52):
A meeting with the principal and the head of
school, Christy Baker.
And the directive fromleadership was chillingly
direct.
SPEAKER_01 (06:00):
What did they say?
SPEAKER_00 (06:01):
They told him that no one should know he was in a
relationship.
SPEAKER_01 (06:05):
Wow.
I mean, that's an institutionaldemand for secrecy about his
personal life.
SPEAKER_00 (06:09):
It is.
And McConkie alleged that, youknow, numerous street teachers
had photos of their spouses out,their partners.
No problem.
No scrutiny.
SPEAKER_01 (06:17):
Aaron Powell So the environment was, I mean,
demonstrably hostile to openlygay relationships, and this was
coming from the very top.
SPEAKER_00 (06:24):
Two decades prior, yes.
And McConkie pulls all thistogether to describe the
school's atmosphere.
He calls it a toxic macho, goodold boys' club, heterocentric
culture.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (06:33):
Particularly in the high school.
SPEAKER_00 (06:35):
Exactly.
Where he says straight white menprotected each other.
SPEAKER_01 (06:38):
Aaron Ross Powell And he brings up another example
to show it wasn't just him.
SPEAKER_00 (06:41):
He does.
He points to a transgenderteacher who left around 2022
because they quote did not feelsupported.
So all these details, they tellthe court that his claims of an
oppressive environment are, youknow, plausible.
SPEAKER_01 (06:54):
Aaron Powell So now we move into the period where
this historical animus becomesinstitutionalized.
Jason Wallen, the same man fromthe 2001 incident, moves into a
position of direct power overMcConkie.
He's appointed acting principalin 2014 and then full principal
in 2015.
SPEAKER_00 (07:10):
Which means Wallen is now McConkie's supervisor.
He's doing his annual reviews,overseeing all employment
decisions.
The whole power dynamic justflips.
SPEAKER_01 (07:19):
And this is where the story takes a really
bizarre, almost manipulativeturn.
The sources describe this, thisritual.
SPEAKER_00 (07:24):
Yes, a ritual that occurred in every single annual
review meeting from then on.
SPEAKER_01 (07:28):
How did it work?
SPEAKER_00 (07:29):
It was insidious.
Wallen would start the meetingoff with positive comments, you
know, praise his work withstudents, seemed very
reasonable.
And then he would bring up the2001 dry race incident.
Every year.
SPEAKER_01 (07:40):
Every single year.
After more than a decade.
SPEAKER_00 (07:43):
Every single year.
He'd say something like,Remember that time?
And then claim that McConkie hadintimidated and scared him
during that originalconfrontation.
SPEAKER_01 (07:51):
And McConkie felt this was like Wallen was using
the slur each year.
SPEAKER_00 (07:57):
Psychologically, yes.
He wasn't writing it, but he wasinjecting its memory and the
power dynamic that came with itinto the most sensitive
employment review McConkie had.
SPEAKER_01 (08:07):
And legally, that repetition is key.
SPEAKER_00 (08:10):
It's the key differentiator.
The court said that because thishappened in annual reviews,
where the power dynamic was atits peak, it was way more than a
stray remark.
SPEAKER_01 (08:19):
It was a pattern, a persistent pattern of animus
tied directly to his jobevaluation.
SPEAKER_00 (08:24):
Exactly.
The court basically agreed amanager who keeps bringing up a
slur from a decade ago in aperformance review isn't just
reflecting on history.
SPEAKER_01 (08:32):
They're using that history as a tool of control in
the present.
SPEAKER_00 (08:35):
It reinforced Wallen's power.
It was like reminding McConkie,I know something about you.
I can make you vulnerable basedon your sexual orientation.
SPEAKER_01 (08:43):
Did McConkie present any other evidence of Wallen's
alleged homophobic behavior?
SPEAKER_00 (08:48):
He did.
He cited other behaviors thatsuggested Wallen was constantly
othering him.
SPEAKER_01 (08:55):
Like what?
SPEAKER_00 (08:56):
For example, Wallen would tell McConkie he would
like newly hired gay teachers, acomment McConkie says he never
made about new straight hires.
It's subtle, but it's apersistent singling out.
SPEAKER_01 (09:09):
And then there was something more overt.
SPEAKER_00 (09:10):
Much more.
Wallen allegedly told McConkiehe could not support
reappointing someone like you.
SPEAKER_01 (09:17):
And given the history, McConkie perceived that
as a direct reference to hissexual orientation.
SPEAKER_00 (09:22):
He did.
And finally, there's acomparative example from fall
2022.
Wallen disciplines an openly gaymale student for wearing a tank
top, which was against therules.
SPEAKER_01 (09:30):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (09:31):
But he allegedly did not discipline two non-openly
gay female students standingright there with him, wearing
similar things.
SPEAKER_01 (09:37):
So selective enforcement.
It suggests a pattern of bias,which supports the idea that
Wallen was operating from thatplace.
SPEAKER_00 (09:43):
Precisely.
Now let's switch to the ageclaim.
SPEAKER_01 (09:46):
Okay, so the key evidence here linking Wallen to
age discrimination is thisphrase, institutional memory.
SPEAKER_00 (09:52):
Right.
Wallen repeatedly used thisphrase to describe McConkie.
SPEAKER_01 (09:56):
And McConkie's interpretation was that it was
code for old.
SPEAKER_00 (09:59):
He saw it as an instantiation of Wallen's
ageism.
On the surface, you know, itcould sound complimentary,
suggesting valuable experience.
SPEAKER_01 (10:08):
But he felt it was negative.
SPEAKER_00 (10:10):
Yes, and that ambiguity is really important
for why the age claimsultimately fail later on.
SPEAKER_01 (10:15):
But he didn't just rely on that phrase.
He tried to show the age issuewas systemic.
SPEAKER_00 (10:19):
He did.
He alleged that during an equityinitiative, the assistant head
of school, Anita Bruna, actuallyconfided in him.
She told him ageism was the realproblem at Churchill.
SPEAKER_01 (10:30):
A statement like that from the second in command
adds a lot of weight.
It suggests this was a knowninternal issue.
SPEAKER_00 (10:35):
Aaron Powell, even if she wasn't the final decision
maker, yes.
SPEAKER_01 (10:38):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (10:39):
And then crucially, McConkie alleges a pattern, like
an age-based purge of olderemployees.
SPEAKER_01 (10:45):
What were the specific examples?
SPEAKER_00 (10:46):
He gave four, all happening close together.
A 58-year-old teacher with 37years of tenure, dismissed.
SPEAKER_01 (10:53):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (10:54):
A 65-year-old administrator who just
disappeared one day.
And then two other olderteachers who were pressured to
retire, one in her early 60s.
SPEAKER_01 (11:03):
It sounds like a powerful narrative, but again,
there's a legal bar.
The pattern has to be specificenough to connect to the people
who actually fired him.
SPEAKER_00 (11:11):
And we'll see.
That's where it fell apart.
But before we get to thetermination, we have to talk
about Wallen's alleged historyof using false accusations.
SPEAKER_01 (11:19):
Because this sets the stage for the pretext claim
later.
SPEAKER_00 (11:22):
It's the essential groundwork.
The clearest example is the 2021bonus denial.
SPEAKER_01 (11:27):
Right.
Wallen gives him a very positivereview in May, promises a raise
and a bonus.
SPEAKER_00 (11:33):
And then a month later in June, the bonus is
denied.
And the reason was an anonymousfalse accusation.
McConkie alleges Wallen neverinvestigated it, never even
asked for his side of the story.
SPEAKER_01 (11:43):
And when McConkie checked his own personnel file?
SPEAKER_00 (11:46):
Nothing.
No complaints, which suggeststhe whole thing was just
fabricated by Wallen to deny thebonus.
SPEAKER_01 (11:50):
So the argument is if he used a fake accusation to
deny a bonus in 2021, it makesit much more plausible that he
used a fake accusation to firehim in 2022.
SPEAKER_00 (12:00):
It establishes a pattern of bad faith.
And just as important is howWallen allegedly responded when
challenged.
SPEAKER_01 (12:07):
What did he do?
SPEAKER_00 (12:07):
When McConkie tried to defend himself, Wallen would
just dismiss it by sayingMcConkie couldn't accept
criticism.
SPEAKER_01 (12:14):
So he not only uses false accusations, he has a
built-in defense mechanism toshut down any challenge.
SPEAKER_00 (12:21):
Exactly.
SPEAKER_01 (12:21):
Okay, this is the pivot point.
We're moving from discriminationto retaliation.
And for that, McConkie had toengage in what's called
protected activity.
SPEAKER_00 (12:31):
Which means reporting or complaining about
what he reasonably believed tobe unlawful discrimination.
SPEAKER_01 (12:36):
And he does.
SPEAKER_00 (12:37):
The first time is in September 2021.
And it's sparked by, of allthings, a mandatory sexual
harassment training.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (12:43):
And what in the training sparked it?
SPEAKER_00 (12:45):
It specifically said that the repeated reference to
past harassment could be ongoingharassment.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (12:51):
And for McConkey, a light bulb goes off.
SPEAKER_00 (12:53):
He does.
He realizes Wallen's annualritual with the 2001 slur fits
that definition perfectly.
So he immediately goes toChurchill's director of
diversity, Ashley Green.
SPEAKER_01 (13:03):
Aaron Powell And what was her response?
SPEAKER_00 (13:04):
She acknowledged it was serious, she called the
conduct significant and wasn'tokay, but then nothing.
The source material says shetook no further action.
SPEAKER_01 (13:14):
The initial non-response.
SPEAKER_00 (13:15):
Yes.
So then nine months later, June2022, McConkie escalates.
He formalizes his complaint.
He emails Anita Bruna, theassistant head of school, and
says he wants to go on record.
SPEAKER_01 (13:26):
And this email is the linchpin for the retaliation
claim.
SPEAKER_00 (13:30):
It is.
It's detailed, explicit, itcovers the dryer race incident,
and Wallen's repetition of it,the institutional memory
comment, as code for old.
He clearly labels the issues aspotential homophobia and ageism.
SPEAKER_01 (13:42):
A textbook example of protected activity.
So what was the school'sresponse to this formal
complaint?
SPEAKER_00 (13:47):
The non-response is just as important legally.
Bruna says they should discussthe matter, but then she's
repeatedly unavailable.
SPEAKER_01 (13:54):
So they ignored it.
SPEAKER_00 (13:55):
Effectively, yes.
The school took no action, noinvestigation into this formal
complaint.
SPEAKER_01 (14:00):
And we have to place this on the calendar, right?
Because this is what unlocks thewhole retaliation claim.
SPEAKER_00 (14:04):
Absolutely.
Class has ended just three dayslater, June 17th, 2022.
The school is basically closedfor the summer.
McConkie doesn't come back untillate August.
SPEAKER_01 (14:14):
That calendar gap is what the court zeroes in on.
SPEAKER_00 (14:17):
Yes, when it analyzes the time between the
complaint and the firing.
SPEAKER_01 (14:20):
So McConkie comes back in August.
He's formally accused theprincipal of bias, the school
has done nothing, and withinweeks of the new school year,
the incident happens.
SPEAKER_00 (14:29):
The one the school used as justification for ending
his 30-year career.
Right.
It happened on October 18th,2022.
McConkie is teaching, hisassistant is out, a lot of
faculty are out.
Staffing is thin.
SPEAKER_01 (14:41):
And he notices two female students are missing.
SPEAKER_00 (14:45):
Aaron Powell For about 15 minutes.
SPEAKER_01 (14:46):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (14:47):
So he searches the hall, then goes to the girls'
bathroom.
And this is where the facts gettwisted, which is, you know,
crucial for the legal idea ofpretext.
SPEAKER_01 (14:55):
Aaron Powell We have to rely on McConkie's account
here, which the court accepts astrue for the motion.
SPEAKER_00 (14:59):
Aaron Powell And his account is very precise.
He says he pushed the door openonly a few inches with his foot,
called one of the students'names, and immediately stepped
back.
The other student then opens thedoor and says a third student
had been knocked across the roomwhen he opened it.
SPEAKER_01 (15:13):
But McConkie argues that's impossible.
SPEAKER_00 (15:16):
He does.
He says the force just wasn'tthere.
And he noted that the thirdstudent, student C, came back to
class shortly after and did notappear upset or hurt.
SPEAKER_01 (15:26):
But despite all that, that same evening, the
head of school, Timothy Madigan,suspends him.
SPEAKER_00 (15:32):
Yes, pending an investigation.
And Madigan is the ultimatedecision maker here.
SPEAKER_01 (15:36):
Two days later, there's a meeting.
SPEAKER_00 (15:45):
He gives his version of events.
SPEAKER_01 (15:46):
And this is when he mentions the security camera.
SPEAKER_00 (15:48):
Critically, yes.
He says the camera outside thebathroom could confirm his
account.
SPEAKER_01 (15:53):
Then on October 27th, he's called back.
SPEAKER_00 (15:55):
For a three-minute meeting, time to happen during a
school assembly, and Madiganfires him.
Thirty years, over in threeminutes.
SPEAKER_01 (16:02):
And the termination letter is the core evidence for
pretext.
SPEAKER_00 (16:06):
It is, because it presents a completely different,
and according to McConkie, afalse narrative.
SPEAKER_01 (16:10):
What did it claim?
SPEAKER_00 (16:11):
It claimed he had kicked open the door and knocked
a student into the sink.
SPEAKER_01 (16:16):
That's a huge exaggeration.
Pushed open with a foot is verydifferent from kicked open.
SPEAKER_00 (16:20):
And the school officially asserting a student
was knocked into the sink is amajor escalation.
And that distortion is thealleged pretext.
SPEAKER_01 (16:30):
Aaron Powell The argument being the video was
available.
SPEAKER_00 (16:33):
Right.
It would have shown what reallyhappened.
So Churchill either reviewed thevideo and ignored the truth.
SPEAKER_01 (16:39):
Or they didn't even bother to review it in their
rush to fire him.
SPEAKER_00 (16:42):
Either act willfully ignoring the truth or just
manufacturing a falsehood pointsto an unlawful motive, because
it suggests they were justlooking for any reason to get
rid of him after he complained.
SPEAKER_01 (16:52):
And the final piece of the puzzle, his replacement.
SPEAKER_00 (16:55):
His position and duties were immediately given to
his assistant, who was in hermid-30s, putting her outside the
protected class for agediscrimination.
SPEAKER_01 (17:03):
And the school's actions didn't stop there.
SPEAKER_00 (17:06):
No.
He alleged that after thefiring, members of the
leadership team activelymisrepresented why he was fired,
damaging his professionalreputation.
SPEAKER_01 (17:15):
Okay, so now we get to the legal crucible.
The court has to take all theseallegations and weigh them
against the legal standards.
SPEAKER_00 (17:21):
This is where the subtleties of federal, state,
and city law really matter.
SPEAKER_01 (17:25):
And we have to remember the different causation
standards.
For the Federal AgeDiscrimination Act, the ADEA,
age has to be the butt-forcause.
SPEAKER_00 (17:35):
The decisive reason.
For Title VII, sexualorientation, it just has to be a
motivating factor.
And the city law, the NYCHRL,has the lowest bar of all.
SPEAKER_01 (17:44):
You just have to show you were treated less well
because of a protectedcharacteristic.
SPEAKER_00 (17:49):
Which is the most forgiving standard for a
plaintiff.
SPEAKER_01 (17:51):
Okay, so let's start with the first outcome.
Sexual orientationdiscrimination.
The court allowed these claimsto proceed.
SPEAKER_00 (17:57):
It did.
The motion to dismiss wasdenied.
And it hinged on threeinterconnected legal arguments.
SPEAKER_01 (18:03):
What was the first?
SPEAKER_00 (18:04):
The specificity and longevity of the discriminatory
intent focused on PrincipalWallen.
That longstanding pattern ofincidents, especially the yearly
repetition of the slur.
The court said that was powerfulevidence, far beyond a stray
remark.
SPEAKER_01 (18:18):
And that brings us to the cat's paw theory.
Because Wallen didn't make thefinal decision to fire him,
Madigan did.
So how is the school liable?
SPEAKER_00 (18:26):
The Kat's paw theory is one of the most interesting
parts of employment law.
Imagine Wallen is the one withthe discriminatory motive, and
he provides biased informationthat leads to the firing.
SPEAKER_01 (18:37):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (18:38):
Even if Madigan, the ultimate decision maker, is
totally unbiased, if heuncritically relies on that
poisoned information fromWallen, the subordinate's bias
can be imputed to the employer.
SPEAKER_01 (18:49):
So because Wallen was in that October 20th
meeting, he played a meaningfulrole, and his bias taints the
whole decision.
SPEAKER_00 (18:55):
Exactly.
And the third and mostcompelling factor was the
allegation of pretext.
SPEAKER_01 (19:00):
The manufactured reason for the firing.
SPEAKER_00 (19:02):
Right, exaggerating the door incident.
The court found that McConkie'sclaim that video evidence
existed and would prove theschool's version was false,
created a plausible inference ofintentional bias.
SPEAKER_01 (19:14):
Aaron Powell It makes sense.
If an employer has to bypass thetruth, it suggests they were
just looking for an excuse toget to an outcome they already
wanted.
SPEAKER_00 (19:21):
The law is clear on that.
When you choose an unsupportedaccusatory version of events
over readily available evidence,that implies bias.
SPEAKER_01 (19:29):
So that combination, Wallen's pattern of animus, his
influence on the decision, andthe strong inference of pretext,
let the sexual orientationclaims survive.
SPEAKER_00 (19:39):
That's right.
Which brings us to the dramaticdifference with the age
discrimination claims.
SPEAKER_01 (19:44):
This is what's so fascinating.
Same supervisor, same allegedpretext, same firing.
But the age discriminationclaims were dismissed.
SPEAKER_00 (19:52):
It's stark lesson in how hard it is to meet the ADA's
butt-for standard.
SPEAKER_01 (19:57):
So why did the same pretext ornament that worked for
the sexual orientation claimfail here?
SPEAKER_00 (20:02):
It came down to the quality of the specific age
related evidence.
First, that institutional memoryremark.
SPEAKER_01 (20:08):
Right.
SPEAKER_00 (20:16):
It didn't clearly suggest an intent to fire him.
He was old.
SPEAKER_01 (20:19):
So an ambiguous comment isn't enough for the
high butt for standard.
SPEAKER_00 (20:23):
Not for the ADA, no.
Then there's Bruna's commentthat ageism was the real
problem.
SPEAKER_01 (20:28):
That seemed pretty direct.
SPEAKER_00 (20:30):
Contextually helpful, but the court found it
didn't plausibly show thatageism was the butt for cause of
McConkie's firing by thesespecific decision makers.
SPEAKER_01 (20:39):
And what about the pattern of other older employees
being dismissed?
The purge.
SPEAKER_00 (20:45):
This is where the legal pleading requirements were
just brutal.
He failed to provide crucialdetails.
First, he didn't allege that theadverse actions against those
other four employees were takenby the same people, Wallen or
Madigan.
SPEAKER_01 (20:58):
You have to connect the pattern to the specific
actors.
SPEAKER_00 (21:01):
You do.
And the second fatal flaw wasthat he failed to allege that
those older employees werereplaced by workers outside the
protected class under 40.
SPEAKER_01 (21:10):
So without clear evidence of older workers being
systematically replaced bysignificantly younger workers,
the whole link was just tooweak.
SPEAKER_00 (21:18):
Too attenuated for the strict ADA standard, which
underscores why federal agediscrimination claims are
notoriously difficult to prove.
SPEAKER_01 (21:26):
But despite the dismissal of the age
discrimination claims, theretaliation claims were allowed
to proceed.
SPEAKER_00 (21:31):
All of them.
Both for his complaints aboutage and sex discrimination.
And this is a testament to thestrength of the causation
argument tied to that timeline.
And the defense argued that'stoo long.
Too temporally attenuated toprove the firing was caused by
(21:53):
the complaint.
SPEAKER_01 (21:54):
But the court disagreed.
SPEAKER_00 (21:56):
It did.
And it's because of the contextof the school calendar.
That factual detail saved theentire legal claim.
SPEAKER_01 (22:03):
The summer break, the court decided that the pause
in the school year acted like alegal time machine.
SPEAKER_00 (22:08):
Precisely.
The court said, look, the schoolclosed on June 17th.
He was gone until late August.
They couldn't really retaliateduring the summer.
So the termination inmid-October happened only about
a month after the new schoolyear really got going.
SPEAKER_01 (22:22):
So the court saw it as the school waiting to exact
their retaliation at anopportune time.
SPEAKER_00 (22:27):
Yes.
They waited for the firstavailable pretext, the bathroom
incident, as their opportunity.
SPEAKER_01 (22:32):
Aaron Powell And the pretextual nature of the firing
itself supports the retaliatorymotive.
SPEAKER_00 (22:38):
Absolutely.
The manufactured reasonreinforces the idea they were
just looking for an excuse.
So because the context made thetimeline plausible, the
retaliation claims survived.
SPEAKER_01 (22:47):
This case is just a perfect dissection of that
motion to dismiss standard.
It really shows the differentevidence required for different
types of discrimination.
SPEAKER_00 (22:55):
Aaron Powell It does.
The generalized allegations ofageism and the ambiguous
remarks, they just failed tomeet that strict but for
standard.
SPEAKER_01 (23:03):
Aaron Powell Well, the sexual orientation
discrimination and retaliationclaims succeeded.
SPEAKER_00 (23:07):
Trevor Burrus And that success was built on
specific, repeated derogatorycomments from a key supervisor.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (23:13):
Well in.
SPEAKER_00 (23:14):
The use of the cat's paw theory and that powerful
implication of pretext, theschool ignoring the video
evidence.
SPEAKER_01 (23:20):
Aaron Powell The narrative here is just so human.
I mean, 30 years of tenureending in a three-minute meeting
during a school assembly, thatdetail alone suggests this
institutional disrespect thatreally colors the whole
analysis.
SPEAKER_00 (23:32):
And that contextual detail, the school calendar, was
so vital.
It saved the retaliation claimby framing that four-month gap
as a one-month window.
It's a masterclass in howtemporal proximity can be
legally defined by a workplace'sown context.
SPEAKER_01 (23:49):
So what's the takeaway here for you, the
learner?
I mean, this highlights theimportance of creating a clear
paper trail, right?
Like McConkie did, saying hewanted to go on record.
SPEAKER_00 (23:58):
It also shows that employers can't just rely on
procedural gaps, like a summerbreak, to escape scrutiny if
they immediately move toterminate an employee on a
manufactured excuse when theyget back.
SPEAKER_01 (24:08):
And it's a reminder that specific repeated conduct
is so much more powerful thanvague allegations.
The repetition of the slur waskey.
The ambiguity of institutionalmemory was fatal.
SPEAKER_00 (24:19):
Absolutely.
SPEAKER_01 (24:20):
So, our final provocative thought for you to
mull over.
Considering how much weight thecourt gave to the pretext
allegation, that the schoolwillfully disregarded that
security camera footage.
How much does an employer'swillingness to disregard the
truth actually factor intoestablishing intentional
discrimination?
If a neutral reason ismanufactured, is the act of
(24:41):
manufacturing the lie itself theclearest sign of an underlying
unlawful bias?
SPEAKER_00 (24:45):
The fascinating question.
Thank you for joining us forthis deep dive into the complex
boundaries of workplace bias andlegal plausibility.
SPEAKER_01 (24:56):
We'll see you next time.
Welcome to the Deep Dive.
We're here to take a trulycomplex stack of source
material, distill the vitalnuggets, and hand you the
synthesized knowledge you needto be instantly well informed.
SPEAKER_00 (00:29):
Today we're wading into a workplace drama that
spans three decades.
SPEAKER_01 (00:34):
And it's set in this very specialized high-stakes
environment of Manhattan K-12School.
SPEAKER_00 (00:40):
Aaron Ross Powell The case is McConkie versus the
Churchill School and Center.
And this is, you know, more thanjust a lawsuit.
It's the abrupt, reallycontentious end of a 30-year
teaching career.
SPEAKER_01 (00:49):
Aaron Powell We're looking at a long-term educator
who, at 62 years old, issuddenly terminated.
And he alleges it has nothing todo with performance.
SPEAKER_00 (00:57):
Aaron Powell No.
He says it's all aboutlong-simmering ageism,
homophobia, and criticallyretaliation.
SPEAKER_01 (01:03):
Aaron Powell It's really the mechanics of what
happens when an employee finallyspeaks up.
You shared the court documentswith us, and our mission today
is very specific.
We're diving right into thefederal court's opinion and
order from July of 2025.
SPEAKER_00 (01:14):
Aaron Powell That's right.
And this document, it determinesthe specific factual and legal
thresholds that McConkey claimsneed to cross just to survive.
SPEAKER_01 (01:22):
Just to survive.
So this isn't a verdict.
SPEAKER_00 (01:25):
Not at all.
We're analyzing the crucialopening move in a federal
lawsuit.
It's called a motion to dismiss.
The school is basically arguingeven if everything McConkie says
is true.
SPEAKER_01 (01:36):
He still doesn't have a legal case.
SPEAKER_00 (01:38):
Exactly.
They're saying he hasn't met theminimum legal standard to even
proceed.
SPEAKER_01 (01:43):
So we're testing this idea of plausibility.
I mean, did he provide enoughfactual content to raise a
reasonable expectation that, youknow, discovery emails, reviews
will actually uncover evidence?
SPEAKER_00 (01:56):
Aaron Powell Precisely.
It's the minimal burden just toget through the door.
The court has to accept all hisfactual allegations as true for
this stage.
SPEAKER_01 (02:03):
Aaron Ross Powell And draw every reasonable
inference in his favor.
SPEAKER_00 (02:06):
Aaron Ross Powell If the claims are plausible, the
case continues.
If they're too vague, tooneutral, they get dismissed.
SPEAKER_01 (02:11):
Aaron Ross Powell Okay, so let's unpack this.
We're talking about claims forage discrimination under the
ADEA.
SPEAKER_00 (02:15):
Sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII,
which, you know, follows the bigBostock ruling.
SPEAKER_01 (02:20):
And then retaliation.
All under federal, sturt, andcity laws.
So we're going to dissect whichclaims made it past that minimal
bar and why others didn't.
SPEAKER_00 (02:28):
Aaron Powell And sometimes for very subtle
reasons.
SPEAKER_01 (02:31):
To really understand the stakes here, we have to
start with the plaintiffhimself, Dennis McConkie.
This was not a short-termemployee.
SPEAKER_00 (02:39):
Not at all.
His career at the ChurchillSchool was the centerpiece of
his professional life for nearlythree decades.
SPEAKER_01 (02:45):
And his background is important, right?
It establishes him as aprofessional.
SPEAKER_00 (02:49):
A highly qualified one.
He has a Bachelor of Sciencefrom Skidmore in 84, an MFA from
UPenn in 1990.
He'd already taught at thecollege level before even
joining Churchill.
SPEAKER_01 (03:00):
He joined them in December of 1992, started as an
assistant art teacher for K-8.
This is a specialized school,right, for students with
learning disabilities.
SPEAKER_00 (03:08):
It is, and he moved up quickly.
By 1995, he's the head artteacher and head of the art
department.
SPEAKER_01 (03:14):
And his role just kept growing with the school.
SPEAKER_00 (03:16):
Right.
When they added the high schoolin 99, his role expanded to
K-12.
This wasn't just a teacher.
He was, I mean, central to theirarts curriculum.
SPEAKER_01 (03:25):
That kind of tenure usually means respect,
stability.
SPEAKER_00 (03:28):
You would think so.
He even took on administrativeroles.
In 2006, he was appointed adean, leading a high school
grade.
SPEAKER_01 (03:36):
And this is where Jason Wallen comes in, the man
who becomes central to thiswhole conflict.
SPEAKER_00 (03:41):
Yes.
Wallen was appointed a dean atthe same time, and during that
period, he actually referred toMcConkie as the best of the
deans.
SPEAKER_01 (03:49):
That's a remarkable detail.
It shows a history ofcompetence.
SPEAKER_00 (03:52):
It does.
But McConkie also points to thissubtle decline in his status
starting around 2012.
He lost the title, head of theart department.
And the reason was the schoolwas supposedly too small for
official department heads, buthis responsibilities, you know,
they didn't really change.
SPEAKER_01 (04:11):
So from a legal perspective, a plaintiff would
flag that detail years later tosuggest, you know, this erosion
of his status started way beforethe actual firing.
SPEAKER_00 (04:19):
Exactly.
It sets the stage.
Yeah.
So by the time we get to October2022, when he's fired, he has
almost 30 years at this school.
He's 62 years old, firmly in theprotected age class.
SPEAKER_01 (04:29):
And he was the oldest teacher in the high
school?
SPEAKER_00 (04:31):
And the second oldest in the entire school.
SPEAKER_01 (04:33):
The court recognizes that a decision made in 2022
often has roots that go wayback.
SPEAKER_00 (04:38):
Aaron Powell Yes.
And McConkie's complaint detailsthese really specific older
incidents.
Even though they're outside thestatute of limitations, the
court said they provide crucial,relevant background evidence.
SPEAKER_01 (04:50):
Okay, so what's the first one?
SPEAKER_00 (04:52):
Let's start with the earliest and you know maybe the
most shocking.
The 2001 dry erase incident.
SPEAKER_01 (04:59):
Right.
SPEAKER_00 (04:59):
Late one day, a distraught student tells
McConkie that a homophobic slurhad been written on Jason
Wallen's dry erase board.
SPEAKER_01 (05:07):
The actual slur was Dennis is a fucking fag.
SPEAKER_00 (05:09):
And the student said it had been up there visible all
day.
SPEAKER_01 (05:12):
So McConkie confronted Wallen about it.
SPEAKER_00 (05:15):
He did.
He asked him why he hadn'terased it.
And Wallen's defense was simplythat he hadn't noticed it.
SPEAKER_01 (05:20):
Which McConkie sees as what?
Tolerance?
Complicity.
SPEAKER_00 (05:23):
Aaron Ross Powell He sees it as Wallen's initial
indifference to homophobia.
And that's incredibly importantcontext because Wallen later
becomes his direct supervisor.
SPEAKER_01 (05:32):
And as we'll get into, he weaponizes this exact
incident.
SPEAKER_00 (05:35):
He does.
Then just a year later, 2002,the second major incident
happens.
SPEAKER_01 (05:39):
This one involves a photograph.
SPEAKER_00 (05:41):
A photo of McConkie's male partner on his
desk.
Just a simple desk photo.
The principal at the time, GlennCorwin, noticed it.
And it led to a formal meeting.
SPEAKER_01 (05:51):
A meeting over a photo.
SPEAKER_00 (05:52):
A meeting with the principal and the head of
school, Christy Baker.
And the directive fromleadership was chillingly
direct.
SPEAKER_01 (06:00):
What did they say?
SPEAKER_00 (06:01):
They told him that no one should know he was in a
relationship.
SPEAKER_01 (06:05):
Wow.
I mean, that's an institutionaldemand for secrecy about his
personal life.
SPEAKER_00 (06:09):
It is.
And McConkie alleged that, youknow, numerous street teachers
had photos of their spouses out,their partners.
No problem.
No scrutiny.
SPEAKER_01 (06:17):
Aaron Powell So the environment was, I mean,
demonstrably hostile to openlygay relationships, and this was
coming from the very top.
SPEAKER_00 (06:24):
Two decades prior, yes.
And McConkie pulls all thistogether to describe the
school's atmosphere.
He calls it a toxic macho, goodold boys' club, heterocentric
culture.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (06:33):
Particularly in the high school.
SPEAKER_00 (06:35):
Exactly.
Where he says straight white menprotected each other.
SPEAKER_01 (06:38):
Aaron Ross Powell And he brings up another example
to show it wasn't just him.
SPEAKER_00 (06:41):
He does.
He points to a transgenderteacher who left around 2022
because they quote did not feelsupported.
So all these details, they tellthe court that his claims of an
oppressive environment are, youknow, plausible.
SPEAKER_01 (06:54):
Aaron Powell So now we move into the period where
this historical animus becomesinstitutionalized.
Jason Wallen, the same man fromthe 2001 incident, moves into a
position of direct power overMcConkie.
He's appointed acting principalin 2014 and then full principal
in 2015.
SPEAKER_00 (07:10):
Which means Wallen is now McConkie's supervisor.
He's doing his annual reviews,overseeing all employment
decisions.
The whole power dynamic justflips.
SPEAKER_01 (07:19):
And this is where the story takes a really
bizarre, almost manipulativeturn.
The sources describe this, thisritual.
SPEAKER_00 (07:24):
Yes, a ritual that occurred in every single annual
review meeting from then on.
SPEAKER_01 (07:28):
How did it work?
SPEAKER_00 (07:29):
It was insidious.
Wallen would start the meetingoff with positive comments, you
know, praise his work withstudents, seemed very
reasonable.
And then he would bring up the2001 dry race incident.
Every year.
SPEAKER_01 (07:40):
Every single year.
After more than a decade.
SPEAKER_00 (07:43):
Every single year.
He'd say something like,Remember that time?
And then claim that McConkie hadintimidated and scared him
during that originalconfrontation.
SPEAKER_01 (07:51):
And McConkie felt this was like Wallen was using
the slur each year.
SPEAKER_00 (07:57):
Psychologically, yes.
He wasn't writing it, but he wasinjecting its memory and the
power dynamic that came with itinto the most sensitive
employment review McConkie had.
SPEAKER_01 (08:07):
And legally, that repetition is key.
SPEAKER_00 (08:10):
It's the key differentiator.
The court said that because thishappened in annual reviews,
where the power dynamic was atits peak, it was way more than a
stray remark.
SPEAKER_01 (08:19):
It was a pattern, a persistent pattern of animus
tied directly to his jobevaluation.
SPEAKER_00 (08:24):
Exactly.
The court basically agreed amanager who keeps bringing up a
slur from a decade ago in aperformance review isn't just
reflecting on history.
SPEAKER_01 (08:32):
They're using that history as a tool of control in
the present.
SPEAKER_00 (08:35):
It reinforced Wallen's power.
It was like reminding McConkie,I know something about you.
I can make you vulnerable basedon your sexual orientation.
SPEAKER_01 (08:43):
Did McConkie present any other evidence of Wallen's
alleged homophobic behavior?
SPEAKER_00 (08:48):
He did.
He cited other behaviors thatsuggested Wallen was constantly
othering him.
SPEAKER_01 (08:55):
Like what?
SPEAKER_00 (08:56):
For example, Wallen would tell McConkie he would
like newly hired gay teachers, acomment McConkie says he never
made about new straight hires.
It's subtle, but it's apersistent singling out.
SPEAKER_01 (09:09):
And then there was something more overt.
SPEAKER_00 (09:10):
Much more.
Wallen allegedly told McConkiehe could not support
reappointing someone like you.
SPEAKER_01 (09:17):
And given the history, McConkie perceived that
as a direct reference to hissexual orientation.
SPEAKER_00 (09:22):
He did.
And finally, there's acomparative example from fall
2022.
Wallen disciplines an openly gaymale student for wearing a tank
top, which was against therules.
SPEAKER_01 (09:30):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (09:31):
But he allegedly did not discipline two non-openly
gay female students standingright there with him, wearing
similar things.
SPEAKER_01 (09:37):
So selective enforcement.
It suggests a pattern of bias,which supports the idea that
Wallen was operating from thatplace.
SPEAKER_00 (09:43):
Precisely.
Now let's switch to the ageclaim.
SPEAKER_01 (09:46):
Okay, so the key evidence here linking Wallen to
age discrimination is thisphrase, institutional memory.
SPEAKER_00 (09:52):
Right.
Wallen repeatedly used thisphrase to describe McConkie.
SPEAKER_01 (09:56):
And McConkie's interpretation was that it was
code for old.
SPEAKER_00 (09:59):
He saw it as an instantiation of Wallen's
ageism.
On the surface, you know, itcould sound complimentary,
suggesting valuable experience.
SPEAKER_01 (10:08):
But he felt it was negative.
SPEAKER_00 (10:10):
Yes, and that ambiguity is really important
for why the age claimsultimately fail later on.
SPEAKER_01 (10:15):
But he didn't just rely on that phrase.
He tried to show the age issuewas systemic.
SPEAKER_00 (10:19):
He did.
He alleged that during an equityinitiative, the assistant head
of school, Anita Bruna, actuallyconfided in him.
She told him ageism was the realproblem at Churchill.
SPEAKER_01 (10:30):
A statement like that from the second in command
adds a lot of weight.
It suggests this was a knowninternal issue.
SPEAKER_00 (10:35):
Aaron Powell, even if she wasn't the final decision
maker, yes.
SPEAKER_01 (10:38):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (10:39):
And then crucially, McConkie alleges a pattern, like
an age-based purge of olderemployees.
SPEAKER_01 (10:45):
What were the specific examples?
SPEAKER_00 (10:46):
He gave four, all happening close together.
A 58-year-old teacher with 37years of tenure, dismissed.
SPEAKER_01 (10:53):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (10:54):
A 65-year-old administrator who just
disappeared one day.
And then two other olderteachers who were pressured to
retire, one in her early 60s.
SPEAKER_01 (11:03):
It sounds like a powerful narrative, but again,
there's a legal bar.
The pattern has to be specificenough to connect to the people
who actually fired him.
SPEAKER_00 (11:11):
And we'll see.
That's where it fell apart.
But before we get to thetermination, we have to talk
about Wallen's alleged historyof using false accusations.
SPEAKER_01 (11:19):
Because this sets the stage for the pretext claim
later.
SPEAKER_00 (11:22):
It's the essential groundwork.
The clearest example is the 2021bonus denial.
SPEAKER_01 (11:27):
Right.
Wallen gives him a very positivereview in May, promises a raise
and a bonus.
SPEAKER_00 (11:33):
And then a month later in June, the bonus is
denied.
And the reason was an anonymousfalse accusation.
McConkie alleges Wallen neverinvestigated it, never even
asked for his side of the story.
SPEAKER_01 (11:43):
And when McConkie checked his own personnel file?
SPEAKER_00 (11:46):
Nothing.
No complaints, which suggeststhe whole thing was just
fabricated by Wallen to deny thebonus.
SPEAKER_01 (11:50):
So the argument is if he used a fake accusation to
deny a bonus in 2021, it makesit much more plausible that he
used a fake accusation to firehim in 2022.
SPEAKER_00 (12:00):
It establishes a pattern of bad faith.
And just as important is howWallen allegedly responded when
challenged.
SPEAKER_01 (12:07):
What did he do?
SPEAKER_00 (12:07):
When McConkie tried to defend himself, Wallen would
just dismiss it by sayingMcConkie couldn't accept
criticism.
SPEAKER_01 (12:14):
So he not only uses false accusations, he has a
built-in defense mechanism toshut down any challenge.
SPEAKER_00 (12:21):
Exactly.
SPEAKER_01 (12:21):
Okay, this is the pivot point.
We're moving from discriminationto retaliation.
And for that, McConkie had toengage in what's called
protected activity.
SPEAKER_00 (12:31):
Which means reporting or complaining about
what he reasonably believed tobe unlawful discrimination.
SPEAKER_01 (12:36):
And he does.
SPEAKER_00 (12:37):
The first time is in September 2021.
And it's sparked by, of allthings, a mandatory sexual
harassment training.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (12:43):
And what in the training sparked it?
SPEAKER_00 (12:45):
It specifically said that the repeated reference to
past harassment could be ongoingharassment.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (12:51):
And for McConkey, a light bulb goes off.
SPEAKER_00 (12:53):
He does.
He realizes Wallen's annualritual with the 2001 slur fits
that definition perfectly.
So he immediately goes toChurchill's director of
diversity, Ashley Green.
SPEAKER_01 (13:03):
Aaron Powell And what was her response?
SPEAKER_00 (13:04):
She acknowledged it was serious, she called the
conduct significant and wasn'tokay, but then nothing.
The source material says shetook no further action.
SPEAKER_01 (13:14):
The initial non-response.
SPEAKER_00 (13:15):
Yes.
So then nine months later, June2022, McConkie escalates.
He formalizes his complaint.
He emails Anita Bruna, theassistant head of school, and
says he wants to go on record.
SPEAKER_01 (13:26):
And this email is the linchpin for the retaliation
claim.
SPEAKER_00 (13:30):
It is.
It's detailed, explicit, itcovers the dryer race incident,
and Wallen's repetition of it,the institutional memory
comment, as code for old.
He clearly labels the issues aspotential homophobia and ageism.
SPEAKER_01 (13:42):
A textbook example of protected activity.
So what was the school'sresponse to this formal
complaint?
SPEAKER_00 (13:47):
The non-response is just as important legally.
Bruna says they should discussthe matter, but then she's
repeatedly unavailable.
SPEAKER_01 (13:54):
So they ignored it.
SPEAKER_00 (13:55):
Effectively, yes.
The school took no action, noinvestigation into this formal
complaint.
SPEAKER_01 (14:00):
And we have to place this on the calendar, right?
Because this is what unlocks thewhole retaliation claim.
SPEAKER_00 (14:04):
Absolutely.
Class has ended just three dayslater, June 17th, 2022.
The school is basically closedfor the summer.
McConkie doesn't come back untillate August.
SPEAKER_01 (14:14):
That calendar gap is what the court zeroes in on.
SPEAKER_00 (14:17):
Yes, when it analyzes the time between the
complaint and the firing.
SPEAKER_01 (14:20):
So McConkie comes back in August.
He's formally accused theprincipal of bias, the school
has done nothing, and withinweeks of the new school year,
the incident happens.
SPEAKER_00 (14:29):
The one the school used as justification for ending
his 30-year career.
Right.
It happened on October 18th,2022.
McConkie is teaching, hisassistant is out, a lot of
faculty are out.
Staffing is thin.
SPEAKER_01 (14:41):
And he notices two female students are missing.
SPEAKER_00 (14:45):
Aaron Powell For about 15 minutes.
SPEAKER_01 (14:46):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_00 (14:47):
So he searches the hall, then goes to the girls'
bathroom.
And this is where the facts gettwisted, which is, you know,
crucial for the legal idea ofpretext.
SPEAKER_01 (14:55):
Aaron Powell We have to rely on McConkie's account
here, which the court accepts astrue for the motion.
SPEAKER_00 (14:59):
Aaron Powell And his account is very precise.
He says he pushed the door openonly a few inches with his foot,
called one of the students'names, and immediately stepped
back.
The other student then opens thedoor and says a third student
had been knocked across the roomwhen he opened it.
SPEAKER_01 (15:13):
But McConkie argues that's impossible.
SPEAKER_00 (15:16):
He does.
He says the force just wasn'tthere.
And he noted that the thirdstudent, student C, came back to
class shortly after and did notappear upset or hurt.
SPEAKER_01 (15:26):
But despite all that, that same evening, the
head of school, Timothy Madigan,suspends him.
SPEAKER_00 (15:32):
Yes, pending an investigation.
And Madigan is the ultimatedecision maker here.
SPEAKER_01 (15:36):
Two days later, there's a meeting.
SPEAKER_00 (15:45):
He gives his version of events.
SPEAKER_01 (15:46):
And this is when he mentions the security camera.
SPEAKER_00 (15:48):
Critically, yes.
He says the camera outside thebathroom could confirm his
account.
SPEAKER_01 (15:53):
Then on October 27th, he's called back.
SPEAKER_00 (15:55):
For a three-minute meeting, time to happen during a
school assembly, and Madiganfires him.
Thirty years, over in threeminutes.
SPEAKER_01 (16:02):
And the termination letter is the core evidence for
pretext.
SPEAKER_00 (16:06):
It is, because it presents a completely different,
and according to McConkie, afalse narrative.
SPEAKER_01 (16:10):
What did it claim?
SPEAKER_00 (16:11):
It claimed he had kicked open the door and knocked
a student into the sink.
SPEAKER_01 (16:16):
That's a huge exaggeration.
Pushed open with a foot is verydifferent from kicked open.
SPEAKER_00 (16:20):
And the school officially asserting a student
was knocked into the sink is amajor escalation.
And that distortion is thealleged pretext.
SPEAKER_01 (16:30):
Aaron Powell The argument being the video was
available.
SPEAKER_00 (16:33):
Right.
It would have shown what reallyhappened.
So Churchill either reviewed thevideo and ignored the truth.
SPEAKER_01 (16:39):
Or they didn't even bother to review it in their
rush to fire him.
SPEAKER_00 (16:42):
Either act willfully ignoring the truth or just
manufacturing a falsehood pointsto an unlawful motive, because
it suggests they were justlooking for any reason to get
rid of him after he complained.
SPEAKER_01 (16:52):
And the final piece of the puzzle, his replacement.
SPEAKER_00 (16:55):
His position and duties were immediately given to
his assistant, who was in hermid-30s, putting her outside the
protected class for agediscrimination.
SPEAKER_01 (17:03):
And the school's actions didn't stop there.
SPEAKER_00 (17:06):
No.
He alleged that after thefiring, members of the
leadership team activelymisrepresented why he was fired,
damaging his professionalreputation.
SPEAKER_01 (17:15):
Okay, so now we get to the legal crucible.
The court has to take all theseallegations and weigh them
against the legal standards.
SPEAKER_00 (17:21):
This is where the subtleties of federal, state,
and city law really matter.
SPEAKER_01 (17:25):
And we have to remember the different causation
standards.
For the Federal AgeDiscrimination Act, the ADEA,
age has to be the butt-forcause.
SPEAKER_00 (17:35):
The decisive reason.
For Title VII, sexualorientation, it just has to be a
motivating factor.
And the city law, the NYCHRL,has the lowest bar of all.
SPEAKER_01 (17:44):
You just have to show you were treated less well
because of a protectedcharacteristic.
SPEAKER_00 (17:49):
Which is the most forgiving standard for a
plaintiff.
SPEAKER_01 (17:51):
Okay, so let's start with the first outcome.
Sexual orientationdiscrimination.
The court allowed these claimsto proceed.
SPEAKER_00 (17:57):
It did.
The motion to dismiss wasdenied.
And it hinged on threeinterconnected legal arguments.
SPEAKER_01 (18:03):
What was the first?
SPEAKER_00 (18:04):
The specificity and longevity of the discriminatory
intent focused on PrincipalWallen.
That longstanding pattern ofincidents, especially the yearly
repetition of the slur.
The court said that was powerfulevidence, far beyond a stray
remark.
SPEAKER_01 (18:18):
And that brings us to the cat's paw theory.
Because Wallen didn't make thefinal decision to fire him,
Madigan did.
So how is the school liable?
SPEAKER_00 (18:26):
The Kat's paw theory is one of the most interesting
parts of employment law.
Imagine Wallen is the one withthe discriminatory motive, and
he provides biased informationthat leads to the firing.
SPEAKER_01 (18:37):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (18:38):
Even if Madigan, the ultimate decision maker, is
totally unbiased, if heuncritically relies on that
poisoned information fromWallen, the subordinate's bias
can be imputed to the employer.
SPEAKER_01 (18:49):
So because Wallen was in that October 20th
meeting, he played a meaningfulrole, and his bias taints the
whole decision.
SPEAKER_00 (18:55):
Exactly.
And the third and mostcompelling factor was the
allegation of pretext.
SPEAKER_01 (19:00):
The manufactured reason for the firing.
SPEAKER_00 (19:02):
Right, exaggerating the door incident.
The court found that McConkie'sclaim that video evidence
existed and would prove theschool's version was false,
created a plausible inference ofintentional bias.
SPEAKER_01 (19:14):
Aaron Powell It makes sense.
If an employer has to bypass thetruth, it suggests they were
just looking for an excuse toget to an outcome they already
wanted.
SPEAKER_00 (19:21):
The law is clear on that.
When you choose an unsupportedaccusatory version of events
over readily available evidence,that implies bias.
SPEAKER_01 (19:29):
So that combination, Wallen's pattern of animus, his
influence on the decision, andthe strong inference of pretext,
let the sexual orientationclaims survive.
SPEAKER_00 (19:39):
That's right.
Which brings us to the dramaticdifference with the age
discrimination claims.
SPEAKER_01 (19:44):
This is what's so fascinating.
Same supervisor, same allegedpretext, same firing.
But the age discriminationclaims were dismissed.
SPEAKER_00 (19:52):
It's stark lesson in how hard it is to meet the ADA's
butt-for standard.
SPEAKER_01 (19:57):
So why did the same pretext ornament that worked for
the sexual orientation claimfail here?
SPEAKER_00 (20:02):
It came down to the quality of the specific age
related evidence.
First, that institutional memoryremark.
SPEAKER_01 (20:08):
Right.
SPEAKER_00 (20:16):
It didn't clearly suggest an intent to fire him.
He was old.
SPEAKER_01 (20:19):
So an ambiguous comment isn't enough for the
high butt for standard.
SPEAKER_00 (20:23):
Not for the ADA, no.
Then there's Bruna's commentthat ageism was the real
problem.
SPEAKER_01 (20:28):
That seemed pretty direct.
SPEAKER_00 (20:30):
Contextually helpful, but the court found it
didn't plausibly show thatageism was the butt for cause of
McConkie's firing by thesespecific decision makers.
SPEAKER_01 (20:39):
And what about the pattern of other older employees
being dismissed?
The purge.
SPEAKER_00 (20:45):
This is where the legal pleading requirements were
just brutal.
He failed to provide crucialdetails.
First, he didn't allege that theadverse actions against those
other four employees were takenby the same people, Wallen or
Madigan.
SPEAKER_01 (20:58):
You have to connect the pattern to the specific
actors.
SPEAKER_00 (21:01):
You do.
And the second fatal flaw wasthat he failed to allege that
those older employees werereplaced by workers outside the
protected class under 40.
SPEAKER_01 (21:10):
So without clear evidence of older workers being
systematically replaced bysignificantly younger workers,
the whole link was just tooweak.
SPEAKER_00 (21:18):
Too attenuated for the strict ADA standard, which
underscores why federal agediscrimination claims are
notoriously difficult to prove.
SPEAKER_01 (21:26):
But despite the dismissal of the age
discrimination claims, theretaliation claims were allowed
to proceed.
SPEAKER_00 (21:31):
All of them.
Both for his complaints aboutage and sex discrimination.
And this is a testament to thestrength of the causation
argument tied to that timeline.
And the defense argued that'stoo long.
Too temporally attenuated toprove the firing was caused by
(21:53):
the complaint.
SPEAKER_01 (21:54):
But the court disagreed.
SPEAKER_00 (21:56):
It did.
And it's because of the contextof the school calendar.
That factual detail saved theentire legal claim.
SPEAKER_01 (22:03):
The summer break, the court decided that the pause
in the school year acted like alegal time machine.
SPEAKER_00 (22:08):
Precisely.
The court said, look, the schoolclosed on June 17th.
He was gone until late August.
They couldn't really retaliateduring the summer.
So the termination inmid-October happened only about
a month after the new schoolyear really got going.
SPEAKER_01 (22:22):
So the court saw it as the school waiting to exact
their retaliation at anopportune time.
SPEAKER_00 (22:27):
Yes.
They waited for the firstavailable pretext, the bathroom
incident, as their opportunity.
SPEAKER_01 (22:32):
Aaron Powell And the pretextual nature of the firing
itself supports the retaliatorymotive.
SPEAKER_00 (22:38):
Absolutely.
The manufactured reasonreinforces the idea they were
just looking for an excuse.
So because the context made thetimeline plausible, the
retaliation claims survived.
SPEAKER_01 (22:47):
This case is just a perfect dissection of that
motion to dismiss standard.
It really shows the differentevidence required for different
types of discrimination.
SPEAKER_00 (22:55):
Aaron Powell It does.
The generalized allegations ofageism and the ambiguous
remarks, they just failed tomeet that strict but for
standard.
SPEAKER_01 (23:03):
Aaron Powell Well, the sexual orientation
discrimination and retaliationclaims succeeded.
SPEAKER_00 (23:07):
Trevor Burrus And that success was built on
specific, repeated derogatorycomments from a key supervisor.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (23:13):
Well in.
SPEAKER_00 (23:14):
The use of the cat's paw theory and that powerful
implication of pretext, theschool ignoring the video
evidence.
SPEAKER_01 (23:20):
Aaron Powell The narrative here is just so human.
I mean, 30 years of tenureending in a three-minute meeting
during a school assembly, thatdetail alone suggests this
institutional disrespect thatreally colors the whole
analysis.
SPEAKER_00 (23:32):
And that contextual detail, the school calendar, was
so vital.
It saved the retaliation claimby framing that four-month gap
as a one-month window.
It's a masterclass in howtemporal proximity can be
legally defined by a workplace'sown context.
SPEAKER_01 (23:49):
So what's the takeaway here for you, the
learner?
I mean, this highlights theimportance of creating a clear
paper trail, right?
Like McConkie did, saying hewanted to go on record.
SPEAKER_00 (23:58):
It also shows that employers can't just rely on
procedural gaps, like a summerbreak, to escape scrutiny if
they immediately move toterminate an employee on a
manufactured excuse when theyget back.
SPEAKER_01 (24:08):
And it's a reminder that specific repeated conduct
is so much more powerful thanvague allegations.
The repetition of the slur waskey.
The ambiguity of institutionalmemory was fatal.
SPEAKER_00 (24:19):
Absolutely.
SPEAKER_01 (24:20):
So, our final provocative thought for you to
mull over.
Considering how much weight thecourt gave to the pretext
allegation, that the schoolwillfully disregarded that
security camera footage.
How much does an employer'swillingness to disregard the
truth actually factor intoestablishing intentional
discrimination?
If a neutral reason ismanufactured, is the act of
(24:41):
manufacturing the lie itself theclearest sign of an underlying
unlawful bias?
SPEAKER_00 (24:45):
The fascinating question.
Thank you for joining us forthis deep dive into the complex
boundaries of workplace bias andlegal plausibility.
SPEAKER_01 (24:56):
We'll see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.