Caruso v. Bon Secours Charity Health System, Inc., 703 F. App'x 31

Plaintiff Patrizia Caruso, an Italian-born woman in her early 50s, sued her employer Good Samaritan Hospital (GSH), its parent Bon Secours, and two employees alleging discrimination (race, sex, national origin, age) and retaliation under federal law and NYSHRL after she was terminated following a physical altercation with co-worker Charles Edwards.
Caruso had earlier filed a sexual-harassment complaint against Edwards; GSH investigated and the alleged harassment ceased.
After a physical fight between Caruso and Edwards, GSH’s HR investigated, concluded Caruso struck Edwards, and terminated both employees for violating a workplace violence policy.
Caruso proffered two expert witnesses late (disclosing reports only in opposition to summary judgment); the district court excluded their testimony for failure to comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B).
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on Caruso’s discrimination and retaliation claims; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state tort claims against Edwards.
Caruso appealed the exclusion of experts and the grant of summary judgment; the Second Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of two expert witnesses under Rule 26/37	Experts were unpaid and therefore not "retained or specially employed" and no written Rule 26(a)(2)(B) report was required	Experts were recruited to provide opinion testimony and thus required to produce reports; late disclosure prejudiced defendants	Affirmed exclusion: report requirement depends on whether witness was specially retained for litigation, not on payment; district court did not abuse discretion
Discrimination claims (Title VII, §1981, ADEA, NYSHRL)	Termination was motivated by race, sex, national origin, or age; asserted discriminatory animus and pretext for termination	Termination resulted from enforcement of workplace violence policy after investigation showing Caruso struck co-worker; no evidence of discriminatory animus	Affirmed summary judgment for defendants: Caruso failed to show pretext or discriminatory motive
Retaliation claim	Termination was retaliation for prior sexual-harassment complaint against Edwards	Termination followed a physical altercation that independently violated policy; no causal link to months-old complaint	Affirmed summary judgment for defendants: no evidence termination was caused by protected complaint rather than recent misconduct

Patterson v. Balsamico, 440 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing exclusion under Rule 37 and factors to consider)
Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Sci. Commc’ns, Inc., 118 F.3d 955 (2d Cir. 1997) (factors for evaluating nondisclosure sanctions)
Bank of China, N.Y. Branch v. NBM LLC, 359 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2004) (distinguishing percipient employees from specially retained experts)
Downey v. Bob’s Disc. Furniture Holdings, Inc., 633 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (requiring report when expert was recruited to provide opinion testimony)
Prieto v. Malgor, 361 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2004) (report required where expert had no preexisting connection to events)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishing burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard in employment discrimination context)
Harlen Assocs. v. Inc. Vill. of Mineola, 273 F.3d 494 (2d Cir. 2001) (speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
Rivera v. Rochester Genesee Reg’l Transp. Auth., 743 F.3d 11 (2d Cir. 2014) (employer enforcement of preexisting disciplinary policies can defeat retaliation inference)