Duarte v. St. Barnabas Hospital
1:15-cv-06824
S.D.N.Y.Sep 13, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Ruth Rojas Duarte, a Hispanic woman with a lifelong bilateral hearing disability, worked as a clinician at St. Barnabas Hospital's Fordham‑Tremont Community Mental Health Center (CSP) from 2007 until her termination on August 6, 2014.
- Supervisors were Edgardo Quinones (Director) and Milagros Arce‑Tomale (Assistant Director). Duarte used an amplifier for hearing and alleges repeated belittling comments by Quinones about her deafness, accent, and immigration status at staff meetings.
- After a 2012 regulatory change increasing reimbursement for individual therapy, Duarte claims supervisors instructed clinicians to favor individual sessions and to alter timing/records for billing; she repeatedly complained about these practices to supervisors and union representatives.
- Duarte received progressive discipline in late 2013–2014 (a written "verbal" warning, a March 2014 written warning, a two‑day suspension in July 2014) and was terminated in August 2014 for alleged falsification of progress note times; she filed grievances and appealed before termination was upheld.
- Duarte sued under Title VII, the ADA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, NY Labor Law §§ 740/741 (whistleblower), FMLA, and wage/overtime claims (later withdrawn to pursue in a separate collective action). St. Barnabas moved for summary judgment; the court granted in part and denied in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Labor Law §740 waiver bars federal/state/city discrimination claims | Duarte invoked §740/741 whistleblower protections but argues her discrimination claims remain viable | St. Barnabas argued §740(7) waiver forecloses other statutory claims arising from same events | Court: §740 waiver does not bar federal claims (Title VII/ADA) and does not bar NYSHRL/NYCHRL discrimination claims because they protect different wrongs; waiver construed narrowly |
| Disparate treatment (gender, race, national origin) | Duarte says she had heavier caseloads, was denied a laptop, and disciplined more harshly than non‑Hispanic/male colleagues | St. Barnabas points to lack of admissible evidence that non‑Hispanic or male clinicians had lighter caseloads or different treatment; laptops were for school‑based staff (Duarte was not) | Court: Summary judgment for defendant on disparate‑treatment claims under Title VII, ADA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL (insufficient prima facie evidence) |
| Hostile work environment (disability, national origin, gender, race) | Duarte cites repeated humiliating remarks by Quinones about her deafness, accent, and being told to "go back to Ecuador" | St. Barnabas argued comments were not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and some allegations unsupported | Court: Jury issue remains for hostile‑work‑environment claims based on disability and national origin (comments sufficiently continuous/pervasive); summary judgment for defendant on gender‑ and race‑based hostile environment claims |
| Whistleblower retaliation under N.Y. Labor Law §§740/741 | Duarte contends she repeatedly complained about treatment/billing practices (protected activity) and was disciplined/terminated in retaliation | St. Barnabas contends no protected activity or causal link; disciplinary and termination actions were for legitimate performance/billing reasons | Court: Denied summary judgment to defendant on §740/741 retaliation — triable issues exist on protected complaints re: treatment/billing and causal nexus |
| NYSHRL retaliation | Duarte argues she complained about discrimination and was retaliated against | St. Barnabas contends no protected activity and no causal connection (timing, evidence) | Court: Granted summary judgment for defendant — Duarte failed to oppose and, on the merits, timing (3+ months) and evidence insufficient to infer causation |
| FMLA interference/retaliation | Duarte claims supervisors obstructed her April 2014 leave to go to Ecuador to see ill brother | St. Barnabas contends Duarte was not entitled to FMLA leave for a sibling; any dispute was about vacation/union issues | Court: Granted summary judgment for defendant — Duarte not entitled to FMLA leave to care for a sibling; interference and retaliation claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (legal burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2002) (hostile work environment: single severe incident or series of pervasive incidents)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (hostile work environment objective/subjective standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment requires more than metaphysical doubt)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Giannullo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (Local Rule 56.1 facts deemed admitted if not properly controverted)