Chin–McKenzie v. Continuum Health Partners

• Decision Date: 29 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. 10 Civ. 3658(PAE).,10 Civ. 3658(PAE).
• Citation: 876 F.Supp.2d 270
• Parties: Glenis CHIN–McKENZIE, Plaintiff, v. CONTINUUM HEALTH PARTNERS et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

876 F.Supp.2d 270

Glenis CHIN–McKENZIE, Plaintiff,

v.CONTINUUM HEALTH PARTNERS et al., Defendants.

No. 10 Civ. 3658(PAE).

United States District Court,

S.D. New York.

June 29, 2012.

Ian Maxwell Belinfanti, Ian Belinfanti, Esq., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

David Roger Marshall, Rachel Beth Jacobson, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge.

Defendants Continuum Health Partners, Inc. (“Continuum”) and Long Island College Hospital (“LICH”) move for summary judgment against the Complaint of Glenis Chin–McKenzie, which claims sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2, and discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. For the following reasons, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. Undisputed Facts

The parties agree on the facts of this case: Plaintiff, who is counseled, did not rebut any of the undisputed facts set forth in defendants' Rule 56.1 statement, and a failure to respond to an adversary's Rule 56.1 statement admits all facts claimed therein. See Amnesty Int'l USA v. Clapper, 638 F.3d 118, 129 n. 13 (2d Cir.2011), reh'g denied,667 F.3d 163,cert. granted,––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2431, 182 L.Ed.2d 1061 (2012) (citing Gubitosi v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30, 31 n. 1 (2d Cir.1998)); see also S.D.N.Y. Local Rule 56.1(c) (“Each numbered paragraph in the statement of material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted for purposes of the motion unless specifically controverted by a correspondingly numbered paragraph in the statement required to be served by the opposing party”). The undisputed facts are as follows: ¹

On March 13, 2006, LICH hired Chin–McKenzie as a dispatcher in the hospital's engineering department. 56.1 ¶ 8. In that role, Chin–McKenzie answered telephone calls notifying the department of necessary repairs or maintenance work within LICH, identified the relevant engineer on duty to perform the task, issued work orders to the relevant engineer, maintained a logbook of the department's responses to service calls, monitored the time taken on various projects, and prepared quarterly activity reports on the department's activity for senior management. Id. ¶ 9. Chin–McKenzie handled more than 1,000 calls each month in her position as dispatcher; she was LICH's sole dispatcher. Id. ¶¶ 10–11.

On March 20, 2006, Chin–McKenzie attended a day-long orientation for new employees. Id. ¶¶ 13, 19. During that session, Norman Werner, a corporate compliance officer from Continuum, trained the new employees on LICH's corporate compliance program. Id. ¶ 13. The program reviewed LICH's code of conduct and its prohibitions on discrimination,harassment, and retaliation. Id. ¶ 14.² As part of that presentation, Werner offered hypothetical workplace scenarios to illustrate employees' duties under both LICH policies and applicable law; one such scenario addressed sexual harassment. Id. ¶ 17. Werner also gave out LICH's hotline telephone number, to which employees were encouraged to anonymously report behavior violating LICH policy and/or the law. Id. ¶ 18.

A. Chin–McKenzie's Complaint of Sexual Harassment

On October 7, 2008, Chin–McKenzie complained by letter to LICH's human resources department (“HR”) that a male supervisor in the engineering department had sexually harassed her. Id. ¶ 20. Chin–McKenzie's letter described three incidents with the supervisor: one on May 15, 2008 and two on September 29, 2008. Id. ¶ 21. Each involved suggestive and/or innuendo-laden verbal comments; one involved non-sexual touching. Id. As described by Chin–McKenzie, the supervisor did not hurt her or touch her sexually; nor did he ask her for a private rendezvous, or seek sexual favors as a “quid pro quo.” Id. ¶¶ 24–26. Following these incidents, Chin–McKenzie did not take time off from work or seek medical treatment. Id. ¶ 23.

Immediately after Chin–McKenzie's complaint, HR initiated an investigation of her allegations. Id. ¶ 29. On October 10, 2008, three days after Chin–McKenzie's letter, LICH terminated the supervisor as a result of the investigation. Id. ¶ 30. Following the termination, Chin–McKenzie did not experience any other sexual harassment at LICH. Id. ¶ 34.

B. Chin–McKenzie's Allergic Reactions and LICH's Response

Since at least 2002, Chin–McKenzie has suffered from allergic reactions to certain food products and various species of pollen. Id. ¶ 35. She believes that certain chemical odors exacerbate her allergic reactions. Id. ¶ 36. During her previous employment at the engineering department of St. Mary's Hospital, her allergies did not require accommodation, although one episode resulted in a visit to the hospital's emergency room. Id. ¶ 37.

Although Chin–McKenzie's allergic episodes at LICH pre-dated the alleged incidents of sexual harassment, she believes that the trauma from those events in 2008 worsened her allergic reactions. Id. ¶¶ 39–40. When Chin–McKenzie had allergic episodes while working, she was either escorted or taken to the Emergency Department (“ED”) or Employee Health Service (“EHS”). Id. ¶ 41. Often, following these episodes, Chin–McKenzie was sent home for the rest of the day by the attending physician at the ED or EHS; several times, she stayed home for an additional day or more. Id. ¶ 43. In Chin–McKenzie's absence, some maintenance calls to the engineering department, including emergency calls, went unanswered; others were handled less promptly than by Chin–McKenzie Id. ¶ 44.

In or about mid–2008, Chin–McKenzie lodged a complaint regarding her treatment as a patient in the ED. Id. ¶ 45. Later, in November 2008, her supervisors told her that, henceforth, she would have to comply with the newly-enforced LICH policy, under which a supervisor must refer an ill employee to the EHS or ED. Id. ¶¶ 45–48.

In November 2008, Chin–McKenzie suffered three episodes of severe allergic reactions within a 10–day span. Id. ¶ 50. On Friday, November 7, 2008 she suffered a reaction which she believed was caused by Endust, a cleaning product. She was told to go to the EHS in accordance with LICH policy, but instead phoned the EHS and then proceeded directly to the ED. Id. On Monday, November 10, 2008, she suffered another episode (allegedly due to the lingering smell of Endust near her office); she went to EHS but then demanded to be treated in the ED. Id. ¶ 51. Chin–McKenzie was out of work for the remainder of the week thereafter. Id. On Monday, November 17, 2008, she reported to work, but claimed to feel another episode coming on. Id. ¶ 52. Without notifying her managers or EHS, Chin–McKenzie left her office during working hours to walk around the neighborhood and get fresh air. Id. Because Chin–McKenzie did not inform her supervisors before leaving work, or proceed to EHS, her supervisor generated a memorandum memorializing the incident, and admonishing Chin–McKenzie henceforth to comply with LICH procedures. Id. ¶ 53.

On December 4, 2008, LICH convened a meeting with Chin–McKenzie, engineering department managers, HR officials, and her union delegate in order to discuss Chin–McKenzie's condition and possible accommodations. Id. ¶ 54. As a result of this meeting, the housekeeping manager altered the cleaning schedule to avoid cleaning Chin–McKenzie's work area when she was present. Id. ¶ 55. LICH also arranged for Chin–McKenzie to meet with one of the hospital's allergists. Id. ¶ 56. After that appointment, the allergist determined that Chin–McKenzie was highly allergic to certain pollens and hazelnuts; however, the allergist did not recommend any changes in her working environment. Id. ¶¶ 57–58. Through January 2009, Chin–McKenzie did not demand any modifications of her work environment or routine to accommodate her condition. Id. ¶ 59. In January 2009, a supervisor informed Chin–McKenzie that, based on the allergist's report, LICH understood that no accommodation was necessary to enable Chin–McKenzie to function in her present environment; Chin–McKenzie did not take issue with that determination. Id. ¶¶ 60–61.

In June 2009, Chin–McKenzie suffered another three episodes which required her to leave work for the day and, after two episodes, to take the following day off. Id. ¶ 63. On July 1, 2009, LICH's HR manager convened a meeting with Chin–McKenzie, her union delegate, engineering department supervisors, and a physician apiece from the ED and EHS. There, Chin–McKenzie was asked whether she sought any accommodation to allow her to perform her job functions without a recurrence of such episodes, which had disrupted both her and her co-workers. Id. ¶ 65. Chin–McKenzie had no suggestions. She did, however, request a week's time to consult with her personal doctor. Id. ¶ 66.

On or about July 7, 2009, Chin–McKenzie submitted a letter to LICH making four requests-for (1) installation of an exhaust fan; (2) installation of an air purifier; (3) provision of data, in the form of Material Safety Data Sheets (“MSDS”) for the cleaning chemicals used in her workspace; and (4) provision of MSDS for chemicals used by vendors at the hospital. Id. ¶ 67. On July 17, 2009, the engineering department responded, by letter. It noted that (1) it had already provided Chin–McKenzie with an air purifier; (2) Chin–McKenzie had ignored a previous offer to move her desk closer to the window; (3) it had already furnished Chin–McKenzie with MSDS for Endust and a citrus-scented cleaner; and (4) it could not provide additional MSDS data until Chin–McKenzie specified the chemicals whose data she needed. Id. ¶ 68. Chin–McKenzie never responded to the engineering department's requests for specification. However, a ceiling exhaust fan was installed above her desk. Id. ¶¶ 69–70. Chin–McKenzie did not request further...