Grella v. St. Francis Hospital, 149 A.D.3d 1046

Plaintiff Patricia Grella worked for Heart Center Federal Credit Union (HCFCU), part of St. Francis Hospital, from 1991 until September 20, 2011; her separation was characterized by parties as either a resignation or a discharge.
Grella alleged she was discharged due to age discrimination (NY Exec. Law § 296) and retaliation (Labor Law § 215) after complaining about unequal vacation-day treatment during inclement weather; she claimed she (age 50) was replaced by a 25-year-old.
Defendants contended Grella resigned during an altercation in which she aggressively and insubordinately confronted a supervisor and harassed a coworker about the vacation issue, and that they refused her attempted rescission because she had created an untenable office environment.
Defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the second amended complaint; Supreme Court granted the motion and Grella appealed.
The Appellate Division evaluated whether Grella established a prima facie age-discrimination case and whether defendants’ proffered nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual; it also considered the sufficiency of Grella’s retaliation claim under Labor Law § 215.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Age discrimination: prima facie constructive/actual discharge	Grella contends she was discharged and replaced by a substantially younger worker	Defendants say she resigned during an altercation and was not terminated	There is a triable issue whether she was discharged or resigned; replacement by younger worker supports prima facie case
Age discrimination: pretext for defendants' stated reason	Grella argues defendants' account of her conduct is pretextual	Defendants assert legitimate nondiscriminatory reason: her aggressive, threatening, insubordinate conduct	No triable issue of fact that age was the real reason; defendants showed absence of evidence that proffered reasons were a pretext
Temporal/nexus evidence of discriminatory comments	Grella offered prior age-related comments by a supervisor	Defendants note comments were remote in time and not directed at Grella	Court held remote, old comments about another employee insufficient to show nexus to discharge
Retaliation under Labor Law § 215	Grella claims she was retaliated against for complaining about unequal vacation treatment	Defendants argue no protected complaint because Grella did not point to a Labor Law provision she reasonably believed was violated	Defendants entitled to judgment: plaintiff did not identify any Labor Law provision she reasonably believed was violated, so retaliation claim fails

Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623 (NY 1997) (framework for NY Human Rights Law follows federal Title VII standards)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (US 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (US 1993) (plaintiff must show both falsity of employer’s reason and that discrimination was the real reason)
Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295 (NY 2004) (summary judgment standard in employment discrimination cases)
O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308 (US 1996) (replacement by substantially younger worker supports an inference of discrimination)
Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 N.Y.3d 824 (NY 2014) (view facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party for summary judgment)
Mete v. New York State Off. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities, 21 A.D.3d 288 (App. Div. 2005) (remote temporal comments insufficient to establish discriminatory nexus)