Hengjun Chao v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 476 F. App'x 892

Chao v. Mount Sinai Hospital involved Mount Sinai's internal investigation concluding Chao committed research misconduct.
The district court dismissed Chao’s defamation claim as falling under common interest privilege and dismissed other torts as duplicative.
Contract claims were dismissed because New York law requires Article 78 review; the purported contract referenced only the title and duration.
Discrimination claims under McDonnell-Douglas were dismissed as lacking evidence of pretext; asserted stray remarks were insufficient.
Discovery ruling: the court refused to extend discovery to depose a Mount Sinai official about prior misconduct investigations; the Woo investigation was deemed inapt.
The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings, concluding the challenged actions were protected and warranted dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Defamation privilege applies?	Chao argues statements were not privileged.	Mount Sinai asserts common interest privilege applied.	Yes, protected by common interest privilege.
Are other torts duplicative of defamation?	Chao alleges separate harms beyond reputation.	Torts mirror defamation facts and injury flows from reputation harm.	Yes, duplicative; dismissed.
Contract claims properly brought where?	Chao claims contract-based rights under handbook.	Matters reviewed under Article 78, not federal court.	Dismissed; must proceed via Article 78.
Discrimination claims survive McDonnell-Douglas?	Chao suffered adverse action due to race/national origin.	Employer’s non-discriminatory reason for termination shown.	No, claims dismissed for lack of evidence of pretext.
Discovery extension for deposition proper?	Access to prior investigations would show pretext.	Woo/Woodward distinctions; not probative of pretext; discovery denial proper.	Did not abuse discretion; affirmed.

Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429 (N.Y. 1992) (common interest privilege applies to communications inside a shared professional context)
Stukuls v. New York, 42 N.Y.2d 272 (N.Y. 1977) (common interest privilege includes university faculty communications about others' termination)
Ruiz v. County of Rockland, 609 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2010) (McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295 (N.Y. 2004) (state law discrimination standards; pretext analysis)
D’Amico v. City of N.Y., 132 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 1998) (summary judgment standard; no genuine issue of material fact)
Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2000) (similarly situated employees; pretext evidence)