408 F.Supp.3d 379
S.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Judith Schaper, a Hispanic woman, worked at Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center (BLHC) from 2013 and was promoted to Patient Care Technician (PCT) in March 2015; her direct supervisor was Carol Wilson.
- Schaper alleges Wilson made derogatory remarks about Hispanic employees, mocked Spanish, assigned Hispanic PCTs multiple one‑on‑one patients, and otherwise created a hostile environment.
- Between March and July 2015 Schaper made approximately seven informal complaints to supervisors (Ramgahan and O’Regan) and filed a formal discrimination complaint with Labor Relations on August 3, 2015.
- On July 7, 2015 a patient’s daughter filed a written complaint after Schaper did not change a patient’s diaper (Schaper had been asked urgently elsewhere for an EKG); BLHC investigated and terminated Schaper on August 11, 2015 for insubordination.
- Evidence shows BLHC typically used progressive discipline and often did not terminate for insubordination; BLHC later discouraged Dr. Mukherjee from sending Schaper a recommendation letter. Schaper filed EEOC charges in October 2015 and April 2016.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; the court denied the motion in full, finding triable issues on retaliation and hostile‑work‑environment claims under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, and on individual/aider, and vicarious liability theories under the city and state laws.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retaliation by BLHC (Title VII/NYSHRL) | Schaper engaged in protected (informal + formal) complaints and was terminated shortly thereafter; insubordination was pretext. | Termination was legitimate, nondiscriminatory discipline for insubordination. | Court: prima facie retaliation shown (protected activity, knowledge, adverse action, causation); genuine disputes about pretext and timing preclude summary judgment. |
| Retaliation under NYCHRL (BLHC) | Same facts support NYCHRL claim under broader city standard. | Same as above. | Court: claim survives; NYCHRL lower threshold met and causal nexus alleged. |
| Individual liability: Wilson (NYSHRL vs NYCHRL) | Wilson actively participated (asked patient’s daughter to write complaint; joined penalty discussions; failed to investigate). | Wilson lacked employer status / decisionmaking power required for NYSHRL individual liability. | Court: NYSHRL individual liability fails (Wilson not an "employer"); NYCHRL individual and aider/abettor liability survive. |
| Hostile work environment (Title VII/NYSHRL/NYCHRL) | Frequent derogatory comments, mocking Spanish, unequal assignments created abusive environment. | Alleged incidents are isolated/offhand and not severe or pervasive. | Court: disputed facts (frequency, severity, effect) make hostile‑work‑environment a triable issue under federal and state law; NYCHRL claim also survives (lower standard). |
| Adverse acts other than termination (refusal of reference; directing complaint) | BLHC’s blockade of a recommendation and Wilson’s actions were retaliatory. | Defendants: no causal link; Wilson did not know of complaints before July 7. | Court: refusal to permit the recommendation letter may be an adverse, retaliatory act and survives; Wilson’s role in prompting the July 7 complaint cannot be tied to Schaper’s prior complaints (no causation there). |
| Vicarious/aider & abettor liability (NYSHRL/NYCHRL) | BLHC may be vicariously liable for Wilson’s conduct; Wilson may be liable as aider/abettor. | BLHC and Wilson dispute scope of liability; NYSHRL requires employer status for individuals. | Court: aider/abettor and vicarious liability survive under NYCHRL; aider/abettor liability under NYSHRL also survives; NYSHRL individual employer liability does not. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for burdenshifting in discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard on movant’s burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issue for trial standard)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (objective standard for materially adverse action in retaliation law)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (hostile work environment legal standard)
- Jute v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 420 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2005) (elements of a retaliation prima facie case)
- Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013) (pretext and proof of but‑for causation in retaliation cases)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (NYCHRL’s broader standard for harassment and retaliation)
- Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295 (2d Cir. 1995) (limits on individual liability under NYSHRL/employer definition)
- Sumner v. U.S. Postal Serv., 899 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1990) (informal complaints qualify as protected activity)