Smith v. The New York and Presbyterian Hospital
440 F.Supp.3d 303
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Plaintiff Zakeenah Smith, a Black lead ultrasound technologist employed by New York Presbyterian Hospital, alleged race and sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII and the NYSHRL, plus aiding-and-abetting and a state-law breach of contract claim.
- Conflicts arose between Smith and other technologists and radiologists (Drs. Sica and Shankar); multiple coworkers complained about Smith’s communication and conduct and the Hospital investigated.
- Key contested actions: a temporary November 2016 rotation to breast imaging (a few days/week), a May 2017 verbal warning after an in‑front‑of‑patient confrontation, assignment of another technologist (Carroll) to draft vascular protocols (Carroll held the relevant certification), and alleged increased scrutiny/monitoring.
- Smith filed an EEOC charge in 2014 (settled) and raised further complaints culminating in a 2017 grievance/EEOC charge; defendants were aware of the 2017 charge by January 11, 2017.
- The Hospital maintained that all actions were non‑discriminatory business decisions (staffing needs, workplace conduct rules, legitimate qualifications) and produced evidence of departmental complaints against Smith.
- On summary judgment, the Court granted defendants judgment on all federal and state discrimination/retaliation/hostile‑work‑environment claims and aiding‑and‑abetting, and dismissed (without prejudice) the remaining state breach‑of‑contract claim for the state court to decide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination (race/sex, Title VII & NYSHRL) | Reassignment, warning, protocol assignment, and increased scrutiny were adverse actions motivated by race/sex bias | Actions were temporary/routine, non‑adverse or based on legitimate reasons (staffing, conduct violations, coworker certification); plaintiff lacks evidence tying actions to protected status | Summary judgment for defendants — plaintiff failed to show an adverse employment action or evidence of pretext/inference of discrimination |
| Retaliation (Title VII & NYSHRL) | Adverse acts followed protected activity (EEOC complaints); defendants acted in retaliation for complaints | Defendants: legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; temporal gaps and lack of direct evidence of retaliatory animus; but‑for causation not shown | Summary judgment for defendants — temporal proximity and proffered statements insufficient to show but‑for causation or direct retaliatory intent |
| Hostile work environment (Title VII & NYSHRL) | Workplace was permeated with discriminatory conduct and statements tied to race/sex | Defendants: alleged remarks are isolated/stray or inadmissible; conduct not severe or pervasive; no showing conduct was because of protected trait | Summary judgment for defendants — incidents were isolated, not severe or pervasive, and lacked linkage to protected class |
| Breach of contract (state law, supplemental jurisdiction) | Smith sought relief on a contract theory tied to employment | Defendants moved for summary judgment on federal claims; state claim was unbriefed and distinct | Court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed breach claim without prejudice to refiling in state court |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment movant’s burden and nonmovant’s obligation to present admissible evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (materiality and genuine dispute standard at summary judgment)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation adverse‑action standard: what could dissuade a reasonable worker)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (retaliation requires but‑for causation)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2015) (retaliation standard; de minimis prima facie burden)
- Alfano v. Costello, 294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2002) (standards for hostile work environment claims)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (factors for inferring discriminatory intent)
- Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000) (summary judgment in discrimination cases: caution but not elimination of the tool)