Rys v. Davis

── Rys v. Davis ── Case No.: 25-857 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 02, 2026 Category: General 25-857 Rys v. Davis UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 3 City of New York, on the 2nd day of April, two thousand twenty-six. 4 5 PRESENT: John M. Walker, Jr., 6 Richard J. Sullivan, 7 Joseph F. Bianco, 8 Circuit Judges. 9 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 SAMANTHA RYS, 11 Plaintiff-Appellant, 12 v. No. 25-857 13 SABRINA DAVIS, TANYA JOHNSON, 14 Defendants-Appellees. 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL H. SUSSMAN, Sussman & 17 Associates, Goshen, NY. 18 1  1 APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: GILLIAN BARNA (Barbara D. Underwood 2 and Judith N. Vale, on the brief), New York 3 State Office of the Attorney General, New 4 York, NY. 5 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern 6 District of New York (Karas, J.). 7 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 8 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 9 For three months until her resignation in August 2021, Plaintiff-Appellant 10 Samantha Rys worked as a parole officer (“PO”) for the Brooklyn bureau of New 11 York’s Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”). As a 12 PO at DOCCS, Rys was supervised by a senior parole officer, Tanya Johnson, who 13 in turn reported to the Brooklyn bureau chief, Sabrina Davis (together, 14 “Defendants-Appellees”). Johnson and Davis are Black women, while Rys is a 15 Caucasian woman. 16 In December 2022, Rys sued her supervisors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging 17 that Davis and Johnson created a hostile work environment and constructively 18 discharged Rys because of her race, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of 19 the Fourteenth Amendment. 20 The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees 21 after determining that Rys failed to meet the evidentiary burden on her hostile 22 work environment and constructive discharge claims. Rys appeals from the 23 district court’s grant of summary judgment. In this appeal, we consider whether 24 the district court erred in discrediting Rys’s declaration as a “sham affidavit” and 25 in granting summary judgment for Defendants-Appellees. We assume the parties’ 2  1 familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and arguments on 2 appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. 3 We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Back v. 4 Hastings on Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist.,