Hill v. Rayboy-Brauestein
| Decision Date | 09 November 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-CV-3770 (KMK).,02-CV-3770 (KMK). |
| Parties | Lena HILL, Plaintiff, v. Carole RAYBOY-BRAUESTEIN, Dr. David Hart, Carole Nelson, Parmanand Persaud, Margaret Refen, Bellevue Hospital & Health Corporation, City of New York Health & Hospital Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Marshall Benjamin Bellovin, Esq., Ballon, Stoll, Bader & Nadler, P.C., New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
David Scott Levine, Esq., Jonathan Michael Bardavid, Esq., Kevin R. Danztler, Esq., New York City Law Department, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Lena Hill filed this action alleging discrimination by various defendants, including her employer, Bellevue Hospital & Health Corporation, as well as the City of New York Health & Hospital Corporation, and her co-workers and supervisors Carol Rayboy-Brauestein ("Raboy-Braunstein"),1 Dr. David Hart, Carole Nelson, Parmanand Persaud, and Margaret Refen. Plaintiff brings several causes of action, including: (1) purposeful racial discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; (2) racial discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (3) retaliation against Plaintiff for filing a discrimination claim, in violation of Title VII; (4) emotional distress as a result of discrimination; and (5) breach of contract.2 Plaintiff mentions, but does not specifically plead, violations of New York Executive Law sections 296 and 297.3 At the conclusion of discovery, Defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts. For the reasons stated below, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff, an African-American woman, has been an employee of New York City for more than 19 years. (Am. Compl.¶ 11) On April 17, 2000, Plaintiff was transferred from Gouveneur Hospital to Defendant Bellevue Hospital & Health Corporation ("Bellevue" or "Bellevue Hospital"), as her division at Gouveneur Hospital closed. (Defs.' Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶¶1, 3 ( )) A few years prior to her transfer, Plaintiff filed a discrimination action under Title VII against the New York City Health and Hospital Corporation stemming from her employment at Gouveneur Hospital. Hill v. N.Y. City Health & Hosp. Corp., No. 96 Civ. 9601 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 20, 1996). That action was settled in April 2000. Plaintiff began working at Bellevue Hospital on May 13, 2000, and she was assigned to the Pediatric Hematology laboratory in the Pathology Department.4 (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 4; Pl.'s Statement of Disputed Material Facts Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 ¶ 4 ("Pl.'s 56.1")) Her current position is Laboratory Associate, and she holds a license to perform laboratory work. (Am. Compl. ¶ 12; Pl.'s Dep. 21) Although while at Gouveneur Hospital Plaintiff had performed numerous different types of analyses, including urinalysis, at Bellevue she primarily performed phlebotomies. (Pl.'s Dep. 23) A phlebotomist draws blood for analysis, but does not analyze blood herself.
Defendant Raboy-Braunstein is Plaintiffs supervisor, and works as the Senior Associate Director of Pathology. (Defs. 56.1 ¶¶ 4-5; Decl. of Marshall B. Bellovin in Opp'n to Defs. Mot. for Summ. J. ("Bellovin Decl.") Ex. B 160,163 ("Pl.'s Dep."5)) Defendant Parmanand Persaud ("Persaud") is Plaintiffs supervisor in the Pediatric Hematology laboratory (Pl.'s Dep. 160, 163), and is the Laboratory Supervisor. (Am.Comp1.¶ 5) Defendant Margaret Refen ("Refen") is the supervisor of Plaintiffs section (Bellovin Decl. Ex. C at 41 ("Raboy-Braunstein Dep."6)), and is also an Associate Laboratory Microbiologist. (Am.Comp1.¶ 6) Defendant Carole Nelson ("Nelson") is also an Associate Laboratory Microbiologist, and one of Plaintiffs supervisors. (Defs.' 56.1 ¶ 10) Both Defendants Nelson and Refen are African-American. (Pl.'s Dep. 85-86) Defendant Dr. David Hart ("Hart") is a pediatric hematologist physician (Am.Compl.¶ 3), who works in Plaintiffs laboratory two days a week and supervises the work there. (Id.; Pl.'s Dep. 160, 163) He is not Plaintiffs direct supervisor. (Raboy-Braunstein Dep. 41)
Upon her transfer to Bellevue in May 2000, Plaintiff alleges that she was questioned by Raboy-Braunstein and Persaud about the settlement in her previous case against the Health and Hospital Corporation. (Pl.'s Dep. 51-55) Additionally, Plaintiff claims that she was almost immediately subjected to discriminatory treatment. (Am.Compl.¶ 17) Plaintiff alleges that she preferred to be assigned to the General Hematology laboratory, but was instead assigned to the Pediatric Hematology laboratory. (Pl.'s Dep. 134, 138) Plaintiff claims this assignment is discriminatory because only "minorities" work in the Pediatric Hematology laboratory "during the day."7 (Id. 134) Plaintiff further alleges that she was assigned to the Pediatric Hematology laboratory without the proper training.8 (Am. Compl. ¶ 19; Pl.'s Dep. 47) According to Plaintiff, she was trained in microscopic urinalysis without the necessary prerequisite training course, allegedly in contravention of the hospital's regulations. (Pl.'s Dep. 47-50, 59) Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that her supervision in the Pediatric Hematology laboratory was discriminatory. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Hart, one of her supervisors, closely micro-manages her work, while he does not do so for "mainstream whites." (Pl.'s Dep. 142, 146-47)
Approximately one month after beginning work at Bellevue, on June 12, 2000, Plaintiff was given three proficiency slides by Persaud, another of her supervisors, to test her ability to identify certain types of cells. Notice of Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. D ( )) Plaintiff did not identify these slides correctly. (Defs.' Mot. Ex. D) Plaintiff alleges that Persaud, who administered the test, lacked knowledge on the subject and thus wrongly evaluated Plaintiffs correct assessments. (Pl.'s Dep. 307) Plaintiff claims that white employees were not given such tests before they were trained on the material being tested. (Am. Compl.¶ 24) Over the next year, Plaintiff was given approximately eight weeks of additional training in both chemical and microscopic urinalysis.
Soon after she started at Bellevue, Plaintiff asked for vacation time during the week of July 4, 2000. She allegedly was told by Raboy-Braunstein to produce an airline ticket.9 (Am. Compl. ¶ 25; Pl.'s Dep. 69-70) Plaintiff asserts that white co-workers are not asked for airline tickets when they wish to go on vacation. (Am. Compl. ¶ 26; Pl.'s Dep. 70) On June 24, 2000, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging that she was racially discriminated against by being forced to show an airline ticket in order to be granted vacation time. On June 30, 2000, the EEOC issued a right to sue letter, as it was unable to determine whether Plaintiffs civil rights had been violated. (Defs.' Mot. Ex. R)
On July 30, 2000, Plaintiff was injured by an autistic patient. (Am. Compl. ¶ 27; Pl.'s Dep. 71, 73) She alleges that by August 2000, she was medically cleared to return to work for all duties except phlebotomy. (Am.Comp1.¶ 27) However, Raboy-Braunstein did not allow Plaintiff to return to work at that point on the grounds that Plaintiff could not perform her on-the-job duties due to injury. (Am. Compl. ¶ 27; Pl.'s Dep. 72) Plaintiff alleges that her treatment was different from that of white employees because she knew of a white employee who was allowed to return to work despite having a cast on one arm. (Am. Compl. ¶ 28; Pl.'s Dep. 73-74) Plaintiff returned to work in October 2000. (Pl.'s Dep. 73)
On December 24 and 26, 2000, Defendants allege that Plaintiff refused to perform tasks requested by supervisors. Plaintiff alleges that Raboy-Braunstein directed these supervisors to write Plaintiff up for insubordination on December 26, 2000, despite Plaintiffs inability to perform the procedures due to injury. (Pl.'s 56.1 ¶ 9) In January 2001, Plaintiff received a negative evaluation of her work covering the period from April 2000 to October 2000. (Defs.' Mot. Ex. E) The evaluation noted that Plaintiff "experience[d] difficulty performing microscopic examination ... of urine after six weeks of training." (Id.) The report also noted that since her injury Plaintiff "has been ill on several occasions including alternate Sundays that she was scheduled to work." (Id.)
Plaintiffs key to the Pediatric Hematology laboratory was either lost or stolen on January 24, 2001. (Pl.'s Dep. 75) When Plaintiff went to report the missing key, allegedly with Defendant Refen's permission, Refen reported Plaintiffs absence to Raboy-Braunstein.10 (Pl.'s Dep. 75, 80-81) Plaintiff alleges that this was because of her race. (Am.Compl.¶ 32)
On March 26, 2001, Plaintiff was asked to take blood from a child in the hospital. She used a venepuncture procedure, when the child allegedly requested a finger-stick procedure.11 (Pl.'s Dep. 110) Soon after, on March 28, 2001, Plaintiff alleges that she was confronted without warning by Refen, Nelson, and another supervisor who subjected her to a test of her microscopic testing skills. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 35-36; Pl.'s Dep. 88) Plaintiff alleges this test was demanded by Raboy-Braunstein in response to the events of March 26th. (Pl.'s Dep. 91) Defendants assert that Plaintiff had been informed of the test the day before. (Defs.' Mot. Ex. N) Plaintiff refused to take the test, stating that she felt ill and had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henny v. New York
...facie case is ‘de minimis,’ Plaintiff must adduce some admissible evidence that would support [his] claims.” Hill v. Rayboy–Brauestein, 467 F.Supp.2d 336, 356 (S.D.N.Y.2006). As to Defendants' alleged denial of Plaintiff's opportunity to work the early shift, Plaintiff does not point to any......
-
Anderson v. State of Ny, Office of Admin.
...the same elements constitute a claim for employment discrimination under § 1981 as under Title VII."). 190. Hill v. Rayboy-Brauestein, 467 F.Supp.2d 336, 367-68 (S.D.N.Y.2006). Accord Ani v. IMI Sys., Inc., No. 98 Civ. 8430, 2002 WL 1888873, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2002) ("Since plaintiff......
-
Walder v. White Plains Bd. of Educ.
...13, 2004) (Peck, M.J.) (& cases cited therein), aff'd, 138 Fed.Appx. 362 (2d Cir.2005). 19 See also, e.g., Hill v. Rayboy-Brauestein, 467 F.Supp.2d 336, 354-55 (S.D.N.Y.2006) ("micro-management" and "excessive scrutiny and review by [plaintiff's] supervisors" were not adverse employment act......
-
Bowen-Hooks v. City of N.Y.
...considered adverse employment actions when they give rise to 'material adverse changes in work conditions.'" Hill v. Rayboy-Brauestein, 467 F. Supp. 2d 336, 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (quoting Hawana v. City of New York, 230 F. Supp. 2d 518, 528 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)); see also Farina v. Branford Bd. of......
-
Administrative Decisions and Materials
...that has considered the issue has found that EEOC determinations have no preclusive effect.’” (Quoting Hill v. Rayboy-Brauestein , 467 F. Supp. 2d 336, 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)); Mingo v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Auth. , 2020 WL 1275455 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2020). Third Circuit Plaintiff ob......