Tubo v. Orange Regional Medical Center
690 F. App'x 736
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Karidis Tubo, an African‑American nursing administrator, was terminated by Orange Regional Medical Center and sued for race discrimination (Title VII, § 1981, NYSHRL), retaliation, breach of contract, and violation of New York Labor Law over unpaid accrued vacation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Hospital; Tubo appealed. The Second Circuit reviews the grant de novo.
- Tubo claimed discriminatory treatment (exclusion from meetings, heavier workload, denied support staff), alleged replacement by Caucasian employees, and pointed to a stray racial remark and other isolated firings of African‑American employees.
- Hospital defended that Tubo was an administrator (not a director), her department was overstaffed, and she was terminated for poor performance and inability to manage labor & delivery; interim staffing decisions were business judgments.
- On the vacation/NYLL claim, the Hospital’s Employee Manual contained a Vacation Policy stating employees terminated for reasons other than layoff/reorganization forfeit accrued benefits; Tubo signed receipt of the manual and did not show a definite conflicting verbal promise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination (prima facie) | Tubo says exclusion, heavier workload, denial of staff, and replacement by Caucasian employees infer discrimination | Hospital says differences explained by title (administrator vs director), staffing needs, and business decisions; alleged replacements not supported by record | Tubo failed to show circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination; prima facie not established |
| Pretext for discrimination | Tubo disputes performance ratings and cites co‑worker support and alleged replacements | Hospital proffers poor performance and leadership failures as legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons | Even assuming prima facie case, Tubo did not show Hospital’s reasons were pretextual; summary judgment affirmed |
| Retaliation | Tubo contends she complained about a racial slur and was then terminated | Hospital contends decision‑makers lacked knowledge of the complaint and termination was for performance | Tubo failed to show Hospital had knowledge of protected activity or that the proffered reason was pretextual; retaliation claim fails |
| Vacation pay / NYLL & breach of contract | Tubo argues she relied on CEO’s description of a "competitive package" and should receive accrued vacation pay | Hospital points to written Vacation Policy (in handbook Tubo received) forfeiting accrued benefits on termination except for economic layoff/reorganization; Tubo did not show a definite contrary verbal agreement | Court enforces written Vacation Policy; Tubo did not establish a binding contradictory verbal contract or that termination was a qualifying layoff/reorganization |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for burden‑shifting in discrimination cases)
- Zann Kwan v. Andalex Group LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard and legitimate nondiscriminatory reason analysis)
- Delaney v. Bank of America Corp., 766 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2014) (courts do not reweigh business decisions absent evidence of discrimination)
- Rojas v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester, 660 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2011) (affidavits lacking personal knowledge are insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Danzer v. Norden Systems, Inc., 151 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1998) (stray remarks ordinarily insufficient to support discrimination inference)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (standard for evaluating sufficiency of evidence at summary judgment)