Gorman v. Covidien, LLC, 146 F. Supp. 3d 509

Background

John Gorman, a veteran and former Covidien sales employee, worked at Covidien from 2001 with various roles and was promoted to Territory Manager in April 2013 reporting to Dale Kelly.
Prior discipline and performance plans: earlier Final Written Warning (pre-2009), a Coaching Plan (2011) which Gorman completed, and customer/colleague complaints in 2013 (Stony Brook hospital, Care Area Specialist, and a marketing VP) about his professionalism and client relationships.
After internal complaints and a ride-along report, management placed Gorman on a 90-day Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) on June 7, 2013; the PIP emphasized professionalism and supervisory oversight.
Gorman filed internal discrimination complaints in June 2013 alleging anti-veteran and anti-disabled comments by Kelly; HR investigated, found the complaints unsubstantiated, and removed Kelly from direct oversight of the PIP.
Gorman took medical leave, was diagnosed with PTSD by a psychologist, suffered a one-time large commission levy tied to customer credits, resigned in September 2013, and sued Covidien and Kelly under NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether placement on PIP and related acts constitute discrimination under NYSHRL (veteran)	Gorman contends PIP, removal from account, and hostile conduct show discrimination based on veteran status	Covidien contends PIP and other acts were nondiscriminatory performance-management responses; PIP not materially adverse	Granted for defendants — Gorman failed to show a materially adverse action or inference of discrimination under NYSHRL
Whether placement on PIP and related acts constitute disability discrimination under NYSHRL (PTSD)	Gorman asserts Kelly perceived him as disabled and PIP resulted from that perception	Defendants argue they were unaware of any disability at the time and provided legitimate reasons for PIP	Granted for defendants — plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie ADA/NYSHRL claim (no materially adverse action)
Whether disability discrimination claim survives under NYCHRL	Gorman argues NYCHRL’s broader standard covers the PIP and Kelly’s alleged comments showing perceived disability	Defendants argue legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons and investigation purge any animus	Denied as to NYCHRL disability claim — triable issue whether Kelly perceived Gorman as disabled and whether that played some motivating role; employer liability imputed under NYCHRL
Whether retaliation (NYSHRL & NYCHRL) and IIED claims survive summary judgment	Gorman asserts subsequent hostile calls, commission levy, and account removal were retaliatory and that defendants’ conduct supports IIED	Defendants argue PIP preceded the protected complaints, calls were not materially adverse/retaliatory, levy and account issues unrelated or occurred earlier; IIED threshold not met	Summary judgment granted for defendants on retaliation claims and IIED — actions not causally retaliatory or sufficiently outrageous

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and genuine issue test)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (NYCHRL construed broadly in favor of plaintiffs)
Zakrzewska v. New School, 14 N.Y.3d 469 (NYCHRL employer liability standards)
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (affirmative defense and tangible employment action principles)
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (same as Ellerth)
Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (individual liability under NYSHRL/aiding-and-abetting discussion)
Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (individual participation standard for NYSHRL liability)
Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs., 22 F.3d 1219 (circumstantial proof of discriminatory intent)