Offor v. Mercy Medical Center, Rockville Centre Division, 2:15-cv-02219

Background

Dr. Chinwe Offor was a full‑time neonatologist at Mercy Medical Center (MMC) from 2000–2014; she requested vacation in late Jan/Feb 2013 to assist her adult daughter during childbirth but did not include detail in her written request about the daughter’s health or incapacity.
In Aug 2012 MMC began internal and external reviews of Offor’s clinical management after concerns were raised by an outside physician; MMC placed her on an ongoing Focused Practitioner Performance Evaluation (FPPE) and later suspended and terminated her (termination Aug 21, 2014).
Offor sued (filed 2015) asserting FMLA retaliation (state claims were dismissed); the case proceeded to cross‑motions for summary judgment in 2020–2021.
Magistrate Judge Locke issued an R&R recommending denial of Offor’s summary judgment, denial of her motions to strike, and granting defendants’ summary judgment because Offor failed to provide sufficient notice that her requested leave may be FMLA‑qualifying.
Offor accused defendants of submitting forged/fabricated documents and moved to strike various exhibits; the district court (Hurley, J.) reviewed de novo, found no clear and convincing evidence of fraud, overruled objections, adopted the R&R, denied Offor’s motions, and entered judgment for defendants.
The court also found (1) Offor’s deposition testimony contradicted later assertions about what she told management about her daughter’s condition, and (2) temporal proximity alone was insufficient because investigatory/disciplinary actions predated her hiring an attorney.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fraud on the court based on allegedly forged/altered exhibits	Defendants submitted forged and fabricated documents; fraud warrants default/relief	Documents reflect clerical mistakes or ordinary drafting; no clear and convincing proof of fraud	No fraud found; plaintiff failed to meet clear and convincing standard; no default relief granted
Sufficiency of FMLA notice (employer duty to inquire)	Offor argues she gave enough notice (conversations + email) that leave may be FMLA‑qualifying	MMC had no reason to know or investigate that Offor’s daughter had a serious condition rendering her incapable of self‑care	Offor failed to provide sufficient notice; employer had no duty to treat the vacation request as FMLA leave; summary judgment for defendants
Inference of retaliation from temporal proximity	Temporal proximity between protected activity and FPPE placement supports retaliation inference	Investigation and progressive discipline began before any protected activity (e.g., before counsel was retained)	Temporal proximity insufficient; adverse actions predated protected activity; no inference of retaliatory intent
Motions to strike / admissibility / expert disclosure	Various defendants’ exhibits are hearsay, improper expert reports, or otherwise inadmissible	Magistrate did not rely on these exhibits for the dispositive FMLA ruling; admissibility issues were not outcome‑determinative	Motions to strike denied; magistrate’s choice not to rely on contested exhibits was proper

Key Cases Cited

Passlogix, Inc. v. 2FA Tech., LLC, 708 F. Supp. 2d 378 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (inaccuracies in documents do not automatically prove fraud; fraud requires clear and convincing proof)
Coutard v. Mun. Credit Union, 848 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2017) (employer notice obligation under FMLA arises only if employer knows or has reason to investigate that leave may be FMLA‑qualifying)
Cruz v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 428 F.3d 1379 (11th Cir. 2005) (statements that an adult daughter was in labor or needed help do not necessarily put employer on notice of FMLA‑qualifying need)
Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2001) (temporal proximity alone cannot create a retaliation inference when adverse actions began prior to protected activity)
Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2001) (district courts have broad discretion to enforce Local Rule 56.1 and disregard noncompliant submissions)
In re Fosamax Prod. Liab. Litig., 707 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2013) (sham affidavits that contradict prior sworn testimony cannot create a genuine issue of fact)
Hayes v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corrs., 84 F.3d 614 (2d Cir. 1996) (affidavit that contradicts deposition testimony may be disregarded)
Bank of China v. NBM LLC, 359 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2004) (distinction between lay witness testimony based on investigation and expert testimony under Rule 701/702)
Gomez v. Rivera Rodriguez, 344 F.3d 103 (1st Cir. 2003) (witnesses who are actors in the events may testify without being subject to expert disclosure requirements)
Gleason v. Jandrucko, 860 F.2d 556 (2d Cir. 1988) (perjury and fabricated evidence are evils to be exposed at trial)