Alvarado v. United Hospice, Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 September 2022
• Docket Number: 20-CV-10790 (KMK)
• Parties: ELIZABETH ALVARADO, ERICKA AGUILAR, WANDA AZU NIEVES, and MARIE WOOD SMITH, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED HOSPICE, INC., CARA DANIELLE PACE, and JUDITH PEACOCK, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

ELIZABETH ALVARADO, ERICKA AGUILAR, WANDA AZU NIEVES, and MARIE WOOD SMITH, Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED HOSPICE, INC., CARA DANIELLE PACE, and JUDITH PEACOCK, Defendants.

No. 20-CV-10790 (KMK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 27, 2022

Appearances:

Richard Cardinale, Esq. Attorney at Law Brooklyn, NY Counsel for Plaintiffs

Stephen Bergstein, Esq. Bergstein & Ullrich New Paltz, NY Counsel for Plaintiffs

Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. Theresa Rudnak, Esq. Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC New York, NY Counsel for Defendants

OPINION & ORDER

KENNETH M. KARAS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Elizabeth Alvarado (“Alvarado”), Ericka Aguilar (“Aguilar”), Wanda Azu Nieves (“Nieves”), and Marie Wood Smith (“Wood Smith”; collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this Action against United Hospice, Inc. (“United Hospice”), Cara Danielle Pace (“Pace”), and Judith Peacock (“Peacock”; collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants unlawfully

1

discriminated and retaliated against them on the basis of their race and ethnicity over the course of Plaintiffs' employment with United Hospice in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. No. 1).)Nieves additionally claims that United Hospice discriminated against her on the basis of her disability by failing to provide her with her requested accommodation, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, et seq. (See id.) Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). (See Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 64).) For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion is granted.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are taken from the Parties' statements pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, (see Defs.' Rule 56.1 Statement (“Defs.' 56.1”) (Dkt. No. 67); Pls.' Rule 56.1 Statement (“Pls.' 56.1”) (Dkt. No. 74-1)), and the admissible evidence submitted by the Parties. The facts are recounted “in the light most favorable to” Plaintiffs, the non-movants. Torcivia v. Suffolk County, 17 F.4th 342, 345 (2d Cir. 2021). The facts as described below are in dispute only to the extent indicated.^[1]

2

1. Background to the Parties

United Hospice is a non-profit organization located in Rockland County that provides palliative end-of-life care services to individuals facing serious illnesses and their families. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 1; Pls.' 56.1 ¶ 1; see also Answer ¶¶ 14, 17 (Dkt. No. 19).) Such services-which are provided in patient homes, skilled nursing homes, group homes, assisted living facilities, and the Joe Raso Hospice Residence (“JRHR”)-include health care, residential care, bereavement services, and education for both patients and their families. (See Answer ¶ 17.) As relevant to this Action, hospice services-such as those provided by United Hospice-are usually covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance, though United Hospice also receives grants to support its operations and programming. (See id. ¶ 18.) Pace is a White woman and has been United Hospice's Chief Executive Officer since June 12, 2020. (See id. ¶ 15.) Pace was originally hired by United Hospice in April 2019 as Chief Administrative Officer; sometime thereafter, her title was changed to Chief Operating Officer before it was changed to Chief Executive Officer. (See id.) Peacock is a White woman and is United Hospice's Director of Clinical Services. (See id. ¶ 16.)

Plaintiffs are all former employees of United Hospice. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 3; Pls.' 56.1 ¶ 3.) Alvarado is a Hispanic woman and United Hospice's former Director of Counseling Services; in this role, Alvarado was responsible for the management of United Hospice's social workers and bereavement services staff and reported to Peacock. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 3, 4; Pls.' 56.1 ¶¶ 3, 4; Decl.

3

of Elizabeth Alvarado in Opp'n to Mot. (“Alvarado Decl.”) ¶ 5 (Dkt. No. 75).) Aguilar and Nieves are also Hispanic women and were formerly social workers at United Hospice; both Aguilar and Nieves reported to Alvarado. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 3; Pls.' 56.1 ¶ 3.) Wood Smith is a Black woman and United Hospice's former Volunteer Coordinator; in this role, Wood Smith reported to Marisa Kuropatkin (“Kuropatkin”), United Hospice's Manager of Bereavement Services, who, in turn, reported to Alvarado. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 4; Pls.' 56.1 ¶ 4.)

2. Plaintiffs' Employment at United Hospice

Plaintiffs each claim that during their employment for United Hospice-and particularly over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and early 2021-they were subjected to discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment via certain events that allegedly took place. (See generally Compl.) However, the record that has been provided to the Court by the Parties includes significant gaps, such that it is not clear to the Court, for instance, when most of these events took place or who was involved. (See generally Defs.' 56.1; Pls.' 56.1.) Moreover, the Parties have provided the Court with little documentary evidence to either corroborate testimony or fill in these and other missing details. (See generally Decl. of Gregory B. Reilly in Supp. of Mot. (“Reilly Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 68); Decl. of Stephen Bergstein in Opp'n to Mot. (“Bergstein Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 74).) Accordingly, the Court's recitation of the factual background of this Action is somewhat sparse and disjointed.

a. Alvarado's Employment at United Hospice

Alvarado claims that her employment at United Hospice was marred by discriminatory treatment, which ultimately led to her choice to file discrimination and retaliation charges with

4

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on July 30, 2020 and ultimately, to voluntarily resign on January 29, 2021.^[2] (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶¶ 6, 8; Pls.' 56.1 ¶¶ 6, 8.)

First, Alvarado claims that she was treated differently from White directors at United Hospice with respect to certain administrative responsibilities. All directors at United Hospice were required to take part in what was called the Administrator-on-Call (“AOC”) rotation, wherein each director would be required to be on-call between 4:30PM and 8:30AM for a period of seven full days. (See Reilly Decl. Exs. B-C (Dkt. Nos. 68-2, 68-3) & Bergstein Decl. Ex. 1 (Dkt. No. 74-2) (“Alvarado Dep”), at 207:11-19.)^[3] While on call, the directors would often need to answer referrals that would come in and speak to families. (See id. at 208:9-17.) Between September and December 2019, Alvarado completed four one-week AOC rotations, (see id. at 210:19-25), and claims that she was not provided with a registered nurse to assist her, as other, White directors were, (see id. at 208:18-209:13). Alvarado raised this issue to Pace, who formed a working group to address Alvarado's concerns that met on multiple occasions. (See id. at 212:19-213:3, 215:14-22.) Based on these meetings, Pace adjusted the AOC model to provide for consistent nurse coverage, which remedied Alvarado's concerns. (See id. at 216:4-20.)

Second, Alvarado claims that she was intentionally and unfairly excluded from certain leadership decisions made at United Hospice. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the leadership team at United Hospice held daily meetings to discuss the changing guidance coming from New

5

York state regarding COVID-19 and other staff and patient care issues, such as when staff would return to in-person work. (See Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 21; Pls.' 56.1 ¶ 21; see also Alvarado Dep. 205:12206:10.) As the Director of Counseling Services, Alvarado attended these meetings alongside other high-level staff, including Peacock and Pace, who led the meetings. (See Alvarado Dep. 206:6-23.)

However, Alvarado claims that she was left out of a number of other leadership meetings focusing on more specific projects, and therefore was excluded from certain decision making. (See, e.g., id. at 180:7-18.) For instance, during the initial phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, United Hospice was focused on how to provide and receive reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) for telemedicine services, and Alvarado claims that she was not included in these discussions. (See id. at 180:14-18; Alvarado Decl. ¶ 11.) As another example, Alvarado claims that after United Hospice received a large grant to encourage the hiring of Hispanic employees to better serve the needs of the Hispanic community in Rockland County, she was not permitted to play as large of a role as “was warranted under the circumstances.” (Pls.' 56.1 ¶ 20; see also Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 20.) However, Alvarado conceded at her deposition that Pace consulted with her as Pace was working on the grant application; that Alvarado attended a kick-off meeting with the Board of Directors after United Hospice received the grant; that Alvarado ran a grant meeting alongside Donna Branca (“Branca”), the Director of Marketing, after the grant was awarded; and that Alvarado participated in at least one meeting with Pace, Nieves, and Aguilar to discuss whether Nieves and Aguilar could staff positions funded by the grant. (See Alvarado Dep. 183:16-196:16.) Alvarado also claims that she was not included in the decision-making process with respect to granting Nieves a COVID-19-related accommodation due to Nieves's immunocompromised status, even though Alvarado was

6

Nieves's supervisor. (See Pls.' 56.1 ¶ 18.) However, Alvarado conceded at her deposition that she was included on multiple emails in which Nieves's requested accommodation was discussed and participated in several meetings regarding the same topic. (See Alvarado Dep. 153:23169:16.)

Finally, Alvarado claims that she was not consulted when her office was relocated in May 2020 alongside at least nine other employees, including Wood Smith and some White employees. (See id. at 199:17-202:3...