Offor v. Mercy Medical Center
676 F. App'x 51
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Dr. Chinwe Offor, an African‑American physician of Nigerian descent, worked as a neonatologist at Mercy Medical Center and alleges a pattern of adverse actions (denial of vacation and moonlighting hours, placement on a Focused Practitioner Performance Review (FPPR), and eventual termination).
- Offor retained counsel in November 2012; Mercy placed her on FPPR in December 2012; she filed an EEOC charge in February 2014 and was terminated in August 2014.
- She sued Mercy, affiliated entities, and supervisors alleging race and national‑origin discrimination (Title VII), retaliation, FMLA violations, HCQIA and hostile work environment claims, and various state‑law claims; she attached voluminous documents, some containing HIPAA‑protected information.
- The district court dismissed all federal claims, declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, denied leave to amend (as futile), ordered sealing of protected materials, and struck portions of the complaint as prejudicial.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed most dismissals but vacated the dismissal of the FMLA retaliation claim and remanded, reinstating supplemental jurisdiction over state claims tied to that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII discrimination (race & national origin) | Offor alleges discriminatory animus caused denials of vacation and moonlighting and other mistreatment | Actions were nondiscriminatory and comparators are not similarly situated | Dismissed: only two acts alleged disparate treatment but comparators weren’t similarly situated, so claims fail to plausibly plead discrimination |
| FMLA denial (statute of limitations / willfulness) | Mercy unlawfully denied FMLA leave; claim timely if willful | Denial was not willful; any delay justified; two‑year limitations applies | Dismissed: Offor conceded she eventually received leave and pleaded no facts showing willfulness, so claim time‑barred |
| FMLA retaliation (retaliation for hiring attorney / exercising rights) | Placed on FPPR shortly after retaining counsel and asserting FMLA rights → retaliatory intent | Timing and actions are legitimate performance‑based steps, not retaliation | Reversed (vacated dismissal): temporal proximity between counsel retention/FMLA exercise and FPPR gives plausible inference of retaliation; claim reinstated |
| HCQIA private right of action | Offor sought relief under HCQIA | Defendants argued no private cause of action | Affirmed: court accepted that HCQIA provides no private right of action |
| Hostile work environment | Alleged pervasive and severe mistreatment | Conduct not severe or pervasive enough | Waived on appeal; district court’s dismissal for failure to plead severe/pervasive conduct stands |
| Amendment / dismissal with prejudice | Sought leave to amend multiple times | Further amendment futile; district court should deny | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in dismissing with prejudice and denying further amendment |
| Sealing and striking complaint portions | Challenged sealing/striking of HIPAA‑protected and quality‑of‑care allegations | Defendants sought sealing and striking as prejudicial and protected | Affirmed: sealing order not appealed; striking of irrelevant/prejudicial quality‑of‑care allegations within court’s authority |
Key Cases Cited
- DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2010) (court may consider documents attached to complaint on motion to dismiss)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (plausible pleading standard for Title VII motivating‑factor claims)
- Albert v. Carovano, 851 F.2d 561 (2d Cir. 1988) (conclusory allegations of discrimination insufficient)
- Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 2000) (comparators must be similarly situated in all material respects)
- Porter v. N.Y. Univ. Sch. of Law, 392 F.3d 530 (2d Cir. 2004) (willful FMLA violations extend statute of limitations to three years)
- Potenza v. City of N.Y., 365 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2004) (elements of FMLA retaliation claim)
- Hicks v. Baines, 593 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (temporal proximity can support inference of retaliatory intent)
- Lore v. City of Syracuse, 670 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2012) (appellate waiver where argument not raised in opening brief)
- Cruz v. FXDirectDealer, LLC, 720 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2013) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for dismissal with prejudice)
- Spinelli v. City of N.Y., 579 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2009) (reinstating federal claim can restore supplemental jurisdiction over related state claims)