Melman v. Montefiore Medical Center
946 N.Y.S.2d 27
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Melman was hired in 1988 as chairman of Montefiore Medical Center’s urology department at age 47.
- In 2007, at age 66, Melman sued Montefiore for age discrimination and retaliation under NYCHRL § 8-107.
- Plaintiff alleged compensation at a rate unreasonably low, limited control over his department, and disrespectful treatment due to age.
- Montefiore showed that compensation for Melman and RG (a younger subordinate) varied based on market value, department performance, and workload metrics (RVUs, charges, collections, OR cases).
- RG’s compensation was increased to retain his robotic-prostate-surgery expertise; Melman’s compensation declined relative to RG’s over the 2004–2008 period.
- The trial court granted Montefiore summary judgment; the appellate majority affirmed, applying McDonnell Douglas and mixed-motive analyses, and concluding no triable issue as to age discrimination or retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NYCHRL claims survive under McDonnell Douglas. | Melman argued discrimination can be shown via McDonnell Douglas framework. | Montefiore contends legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons defeat a prima facie case. | Yes; the court upheld summary judgment on McDonnell Douglas grounds. |
| Whether Montefiore’s reasons for Melman’s compensation were legitimate and nondiscriminatory. | Melman asserted reasons were pretextual and discriminatory. | Montefiore presented market, performance, and departmental concerns as legitimate reasons. | Yes; court found legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanations supported. |
| Whether Melman provided evidence of pretext or a retaliation link to survive summary judgment. | Melman claimed pretext and retaliation for discrimination complaint. | No causal link shown between protected activity and adverse actions; continuing policies predated complaint. | No; no triable issues on pretext or retaliation were shown. |
| Whether NYCHRL mixed-motive framework yields a different result than McDonnell Douglas. | Melman would prevail if discrimination was a motivating factor, even if not sole cause. | Even under mixed-motive, defendant’s nondiscriminatory reasons foreclose liability given the record. | No; mixed-motive analysis did not create a triable issue in Melman’s favor. |
| Whether evidence of other older physicians leaving Montefiore supports discrimination findings. | Departures of older chairs suggest a pattern of age discrimination. | Collateral matters lacking complete evidence do not defeat summary judgment for Melman’s case. | No; insufficient to create triable issue of discrimination against Melman. |
Key Cases Cited
- Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295 (2004) (broad interpretation of NYCHRL after restoration act; framework for discrimination proof)
- Albunio v City of New York, 16 NY3d 472 (2011) (broad construction of NYCHRL; protecting discrimination plaintiffs)
- Bennett v Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 AD3d 29 (2011) (summary judgment under NYCHRL requires considering mixed-motive/evidentiary routes)
- Brown v Henderson, 257 F3d 246 (2d Cir. 2001) (title VII discrimination protects individuals; pattern not required for liability)
- Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295 (2004) (reiterated: nondiscriminatory reason suffices to defeat discrimination claim at summary judgment)