Appeals Court Rules Discrimination Case Claiming 'Thinly Veiled' Racial Remarks at Montefiore Must Continue
The plaintiff, wrote the appeals panel, "points to evidence" that a doctor "regularly favored white employees over black employees, by giving white employees better assignments while giving black employees undesirable assignments supposedly more consistent with their ethnicity."
May 21, 2020 at 06:31 PM
4 minute read
A state appeals court ruled Thursday that factual issues still exist, and a lawsuit must move forward, in a racial discrimination case in which a former Bronx hospital staff member claims that a medical doctor both gave white employees better assignments than black employees and made disparaging racial remarks, like saying "you people" and "those people," when referring to black people generally.
An Appellate Division, First Department panel reversed a lower court dismissal of plaintiff Marsha Bateman's employment discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation-focused lawsuit against Montefiore Medical Center. The panel wrote in part that the "dispute turns on whether defendants terminated plaintiff [Bateman] for discriminatory reasons" and that "issues of fact exist as to whether the proffered reason" for firing Bateman—that Bateman failed in many or most of her job requirements—"was pretextual."
Bateman, according to her lawyer in the case, which was lodged in 2011, had worked as an administrative project manager while at Montefiore Medical Center, particularly on a study being conducted there. The attorney, Uwem Umoh of the Umoh Law Firm in Brooklyn, noted Thursday in a phone interview that in addition to Montefiore, the medical doctor has been named as a defendant in the lawsuit. He said the doctor defendant is Dr. Marina Reznik.
The panel on Thursday, which did not give the doctor's first name in its opinion, wrote that Bateman "points to evidence that Dr. Reznik regularly favored white employees over black employees, by giving white employees better assignments while giving black employees undesirable assignments supposedly more consistent with their ethnicity."
Continued the unanimous panel, "Plaintiff also alleges that Dr. Reznik regularly referred to black employees, collectively, in a critical manner clear from context, as 'you people' or 'those people.'"
Bateman further testified, wrote the panel, "that she heard Dr. Reznik mutter, in a critical manner, 'black people,' when chastising plaintiff."
The justices then wrote that, "this evidence raises issues of fact as to whether defendants"— Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx and the other defendants—"terminated plaintiff for invidious reasons."
The panel noted that the defendants had "proffer[ed] a facially legitimate reason for terminating plaintiff, namely, that she failed in many, if not most, of her job requirements, and failed to improve after being given a warning and final chance."
"Viewed as a whole, however," wrote the panel, "we find that issues of fact exist as to whether the proffered reason was pretextual and thus, defendants' motion should be denied to the extent it seeks dismissal of plaintiff's claims for race-based employment discrimination."
The panel of Justices Rolando Acosta, Dianne Renwick, Troy Webber and Ellen Gesmer added that issues of fact also remained regarding whether Bateman had faced a hostile work environment, under the state and city human rights laws, such as "whether plaintiff was disparaged and treated unfairly for months, including being repeatedly subjected to remarks, thinly-veiled and on one occasion express, which slighted black people as a group."
Addressing her retaliation claim, the panel pointed out, in part, that Bateman had alleged that during an interview at the hospital in which she complained about discrimination "the HR officer strongly suggested that plaintiff would be punished for speaking out," and panel noted that she was terminated not long after the interview, which "further supports a finding of causal connection between plaintiff's complaints and her termination," the panel said.
Jean Schmidt, a shareholder at Littler Mendelson in New York, represented Montefiore and the defendants in the appeal, according to the opinion issued Thursday. She did not respond to an email seeking comment.
Umoh, the lawyer for Bateman, declined to comment about the panel's decision.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWorld Mental Health Day: Acknowledging Pregnancy Loss in the Legal Industry
6 minute readFederal Judge Allows Centers to Promote Abortion 'Reversal' Protocol
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250