Dasrath v. Stony Brook Univ. Med. Ctr.

• Decision Date: 17 March 2015
• Docket Number: 12-CV-1484 (SJF)(SIL)
• Parties: ANAND DASRATH, Plaintiff, v. STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, JEANNENE STRIANSE, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

ANAND DASRATH, Plaintiff, v. STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, JEANNENE STRIANSE, Defendants.

12-CV-1484 (SJF)(SIL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 17, 2015

ORDER

FEUERSTEIN, J.

Plaintiff Anand Dasrath ("Dasrath" or "plaintiff") commenced this action against his former employer, Stony Brook University Medical Center (the "Medical Center") and certain employees of the Medical Center alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII") and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"). Defendants have moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's only remaining claims: (i) discrimination in violation of Title VII against the Medical Center, on grounds other than hostile work environment, and (ii) discrimination in violation of NYSHRL § 296(1) against defendant Jeannene Strianse ("Strianse") in her individual capacity. For the reasons set forth below, defendants' motion is granted in its entirety and the Amended Complaint is dismissed.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background¹

1. Plaintiff's Work at the Medical Center

Plaintiff, who identifies his race as East Indian and national origin as Guyanese (Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 1; [Docket Entry Nos. 3-5 (the "Amended Complaint" or "Am. Compl.") ¶ 1]), was employed as a TH [Teaching Hospital] pharmacist in the Pharmacy Department at the Medical Center from October 2006 to April 2011. Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 2; Am. Compl. ¶¶ 18, 48.

Plaintiff was hired for the night shift at the Medical Center's Pharmacy Department (see Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 10; Yee Aff., Ex L; Yee Aff., Ex. A ("Dasrath Dep."), at 194:6-8), effective October 5, 2006, and received "a temporary salary increase in the amount of $11,500...to recognize the temporary increase in duties and responsibilities assumed on the night shift." Yee Aff., Ex. L. Plaintiff's work days were generally Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from October 2006 to May 2007; Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from May 2007 to September 2007; Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays from September 2007 to October 2008; and Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays from October 2008 through April 2011. Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 33; Yee Aff., Ex. O (Timesheets). Plaintiff was to perform intravenous ("IV") fluid preparations. Am. Compl. ¶ 34. IV preparation is one of three (3) possible assignments for night shift pharmacists; other assignments on the night shift are order entry and Main Pharmacy. Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 23; Yee Aff., Ex. I ("Ferguson Decl.") ¶ 13. Order entry involves checking physicianorders for appropriateness with respect to age, dose and frequency, and contacting physicians when necessary (Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 24; Ferguson Decl. ¶ 14); the Main Pharmacy assignment entails order entry, checking medications and drug information, and dispensing narcotics. Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 25; Ferguson Decl. ¶ 15.

Defendant Strianse has served as Director of Pharmacy at Stony Brook University Hospital since 2003. Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 6; Am. Compl. ¶ 15; Yee Aff., Ex D ("Strianse Decl.") ¶ 1; Dasrath Dep., at 173:12-16. Since 2006, Strianse has reported to Laurie Rafkin ("Rafkin"), Associate Director of Hospital Services. Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 15; Strianse Decl. ¶ 3.

2. Plaintiff's Counseling Memoranda and Performance Evaluations

During the course of his employment, plaintiff received multiple counseling memoranda for unprofessional behavior and tardiness. In July 26, 2007, plaintiff was issued a written counseling memorandum for using foul language (i.e., "F.U.") to a co-worker. Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 71; Yee Aff., Ex. P ("July 2007 Counseling Memorandum"). In October 9, 2009, plaintiff was issued another written counseling memorandum for cursing loudly at Peter Giacopelli ("Giacopelli"), a supervisor at the Pharmacy and a former defendant in this action, when Giacopelli marked plaintiff "late" on the wall attendance list, calling Giacopelli a racial epithet and "scratching over" the late marking so hard that it went through the wall. Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 75; Yee Aff., Ex. T ("October 2009 Counseling Memorandum"). Plaintiff denies that he called Giacopelli a racial epithet. See Yee Aff., Ex. T; Pl. Resp. to Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 75. On November 23, 2009, plaintiff was issued a written counseling memorandum for arriving late and not notifying a supervisor. Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 76; Yee Aff., Ex. U ("November 2009 Counseling Memorandum").

Over the course of his employment, plaintiff received both positive and negative performance evaluations. Plaintiff's 2006-2007 performance evaluation rated plaintiff as "improvement needed" (category 2) in multiple areas (Yee Aff., Ex. Q ("2006-2007 Performance Evaluation")), which plaintiff acknowledges was a "bad" grade. (Dasrath Dep., at 255:3-6). Plaintiff's 2007-2008 performance evaluation rated him as "outstanding" (category 5), "very good" (category 4) or "good" (category 3) in all applicable categories. Yee Aff., Ex. S ("2007-2008 Performance Evaluation"). Plaintiff's 2008-2009 Performance Evaluation rated him as "unsatisfactory" (category 1), the lowest rating, in multiple categories, his overall performance as "unsatisfactory" and recommended "non-renewal." Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 78; Yee Aff., Ex. V ("2008-2009 Performance Evaluation"), at 4. On April 9, 2010, Giacopelli and Karl Von Braun ("Von Braun"), a Pharmacy supervisor and a former defendant in this action, met with plaintiff regarding his 2008-2009 Performance Evaluation and asked him to sign it (the "April 9, 2010 Meeting"). Am. Compl. ¶ 39. Plaintiff refused to sign his performance evaluation claiming he was only presented with the first page of the multi-page form. Am. Compl. ¶ 39. That same day, plaintiff called Strianse at home to complain about Giacopelli's "continued discrimination" claiming that Giacopelli "wrote a fabricated unsatisfactory evaluation about [him] solely due to his race and national origin." Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 81; Am. Compl. ¶ 41. Plaintiff alleges that Strianse ignored plaintiff's complaint and failed to take any action against Giacopelli (Am. Compl. ¶ 41); defendants allege that Strianse met with Dasrath regarding his complaint against Giacopelli, met with Giacopelli and Von Braun, and also discussed Dasrath's complaint with Human Resources. Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 83-85; Yee Aff., Ex. C ("Strianse Dep."), at 131:6-15, 133:10-25; 134-135.

3. Plaintiff's 2010 UUP Discretionary Bonus

Pursuant to the applicable United University Professions ("UUP") contract, certain staff represented by UUP are eligible for an annual discretionary increase. Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 14; Yee Aff., Ex. K ("2007-2011 UUP Agreement"), § 20.9. Plaintiff received discretionary UUP increases in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Yee Aff., Ex. M. At the end of the 2010 calendar year, Strianse and Rafkin determined that plaintiff would not receive a UUP bonus and/or salary increase (Am. Compl. ¶ 33; Strianse Decl. ¶ 6), a decision that Strianse recalls "was based upon Dasrath's performance problems." Strianse Decl. ¶ 6. Plaintiff does not deny that he did not receive a discretionary bonus in 2010 (see Pl. Resp. to Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 17) but argues that allegations that caused him not to receive the bonus "were falsified against him" (Pl. Opp., at 7) and that "every other employee" (id.) received a UUP discretionary bonus except for Richard Galbo ("Galbo") a Caucasian employee. Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 19; Strianse Decl. ¶ 7. Defendants allege that Galbo did not receive a discretionary bonus in 2010 because of his "attendance issues" (Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 18; Strianse Decl. ¶ 7); while plaintiff alleges it was because Galbo "was retiring" and "had no need for it." Pl. Opp., at 7.

4. Alleged Discriminatory Remarks

According to plaintiff, his supervisors and colleagues made numerous remarks about his national origin and race which were discriminatory. Plaintiff alleges that Giacopelli stated that "Guyanese people were all Bucks who did not wear clothes" (Am. Compl. ¶ 23), "did not conduct marriage ceremonies" (id.), "did not have any formal education (id.), and that "all Guyanese men would make babies and leave the scene." Id. Plaintiff also alleges that Giacopelli stated that "people from the jungles of Guyana were [in]capable of working in a responsible job as an I.V. pharmacist" (id. ¶ 26), that plaintiff did not "belong[] here" (id.), that he could "step on[plaintiff] like a cockroach" (id. ¶ 27), that "foreigners create a lot of problems in our country" (id. ¶ 25), that plaintiff was "monkey shit" (id. ¶ 42) and should "go back to the jungles of Guyana" (id.), and that on a number of occasions while plaintiff was eating lunch, Giacopelli asked him, "Is that jaguar meat you are eating? Did you kill the poor jaguar and eat its meat?" Id. ¶ 28; see also Dasrath Dep., at 41-42, 127-144. Plaintiff also alleges that on October 9, 2009 he complained to Strianse that Giacopelli was signing him in late for work and accusing him of eating jaguar meat (Am. Compl. ¶ 29) and that, instead of addressing the allegations, Strianse called plaintiff "violent, insubordinate, and even used racial slurs against him" (id.) calling him a "monkey." Dasrath Dep., at 159:6-161:15. Plaintiff also alleges that on September 24, 2010, he complained to Mr. Santo Barravecchio, defendants' Labor Relations Manager, about continued racial discrimination but that no action was taken in response to his complaint. Am. Compl. ¶ 45.

5. Plaintiff's Termination

Although the date on which plaintiff was informed of his termination is a subject of dispute,² it is undisputed that by April 12, 2011, plaintiff was aware of his impending termination when his attorney wrote a letter to the president of the Medical Center, Dr. Samuel Stanley, stating that plaintiff "recently heard through the grapevine that he [would] be terminatedsoon by Stonybrook [sic] because of an invalid evaluation of him in 2010" and stating that "any termination of him would be unlawful" because: (1) he never received the...