Dall v. St. Catherine of Siena Med. Ctr.

966 F.Supp.2d 167

Robert DALL, Plaintiff,

v.ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant.

No. 11–CV–0444 (MKB).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Aug. 14, 2013.

Joshua S. Beldner, Steven A. Morelli, Law Office of Steven A. Morelli, P.C., Garden City, NY, for Plaintiff.

Mary Ellen Donnelly, Randi Brooke Feldheim, Putney, Twombly, Hall & Hirson LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

MARGO K. BRODIE, District Judge.

Plaintiff Robert Dall brings the above-captioned action against Defendant St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center (“Medical Center”), asserting claims of gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under 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, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. (“NYSHRL”). Defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's gender discrimination claim, and grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's hostile work environment and retaliation claims.

I. Background

On January 8, 2001, Plaintiff was hired as a per diem special procedures technician in the radiology department by Defendant, a not-for-profit hospital located in Smithtown, New York. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 1; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 1.) On April 28, 2002, he was promoted to a full-time special procedures technician, and on May 16, 2005, Plaintiff's job title was changed to MRI technician. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 20, 22; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 20, 22.) Plaintiff was a member of the Union which represented the Medical Center's health care professionals, and was elected President of the Union in 2004. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 28–29, Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 28–29.)

In or about March 2007, Beatrice Birmingham began working as a nurse in the radiology department. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 65; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 65.1.) According to Plaintiff, Birmingham regularly acted in a sexually explicit manner while at work. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 65.3.) Birmingham told sexually explicit stories, visited explicit websites on work computers, showed employees a drawing of her vagina, described her boyfriend's genitalia, brought a chocolate penis to work, openly discussed her personal sex toys, and regularly told co-workers her “lips were made for blow jobs.” (Pl. Dep. 108:5–112:24, 195:13–196:24, 222:1–15.) Plaintiff found Birmingham's behavior to be “offensive” and “downright disgusting,” and the behavior made him uncomfortable. (Pl. Dep. 221:16–222:15.) Plaintiff and others in the department told Birmingham that she was disclosing “too much information,” or that “we don't need to go there.” ( Id. at 110:1–7, 121:16–21.) Both Plaintiff and Andrea Scott, a nurse employed at the Medical Center, witnessed Birmingham bring in a photograph of her ex-husband's genitalia and show it to coworkers in the radiology department. ( Id. at 111:12–19; Scott Decl. ¶ 5.) According to Susan Horn, a nurse employed at the Medical Center, Bonnie Wilson, a nurse formerly employed at the Medical Center, and Karalyn Krieger, a computed tomography technologist (“CT tech”) currently employed by the Medical Center, Birmingham routinely acted in a manner inappropriate for the workplace. (Horn Dep. 10:3–14; Wilson Decl. ¶ 5; Krieger Decl. ¶ 4.) Birmingham wore tight clothing and sat on the laps of male coworkers. (Horn Dep. 12:7–13:15.) According to Horn, Birmingham's behavior, including frequent conversations of a sexual nature, made the work environment uncomfortable. (Horn Dep. 10:11–12:6.)

On December 12, 2009, the employees of the radiology department were invited to attend an annual holiday party at Mediterranean Manor on Long Island. (Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 55–60; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 55–60.) When Plaintiff arrived at the party, Birmingham told Plaintiff that she was “going commando,” or not wearing underwear, under her dress. (Pl. Dep. 125:4–25.) Birmingham and Anne Marie Hawkins, another radiology nurse, were “visible intoxicated,” at the party. (Scott Decl. ¶ 6; Pl. Dep. 125:2–3.) During the event, Birmingham and Hawkins waited for all the male individuals to gather around with their telephones and cameras and started kissing. (Pl. Dep. 126:1–19.) While Birmingham was posing for a photograph, Plaintiff used his cellular telephone to take a photograph of her when her leg was raised. (Pl. Dep. 126:1–19; Hawkins Aff. ¶¶ 5, 6.) According to Plaintiff, the photograph was of Birmingham's knee and lower thigh, (Pl. Dep. 126:19, 129:13–14), and, according to Wilson, the photo did not show anything explicit or inappropriate (Wilson Decl. ¶ 6). According to Hawkins, Plaintiff told her that he took the photograph underneath Birmingham's dress and that it was a photograph of her “ass.” (Hawkins Aff. ¶¶ 6, 8.) Danielle Robbins, Defendant's human resources representative, testified that Hawkins and Birmingham acted inappropriately at the party, kissing and dancing with each other. (Robbins Dep. 40:10–41:17.)

When Plaintiff showed Birmingham the photograph at the party, Birmingham did not ask him to delete it. (Pl. Dep. 127:7–9.) In the days following the party, Defendant maintains that Plaintiff proceeded to show the photograph to other employees at the Medical Center. (Def. Mem. 5; Robbins Aff. ¶ 10.) According to Plaintiff, Hawkins approached Plaintiff and asked to see his telephone. (Pl. Dep. 130:18–131:10.) Plaintiff handed Hawkins his telephone, and he observed her showing the photograph to other employees. (Pl. 56.1 ¶ 75; Pl. Dep. 130:18–133:24.).

In early January 2010, Plaintiff and Birmingham had a verbal confrontation relating to a patient. (Pl. Dep. 134:17–135:25; Krieger Decl. ¶ 7.) According to Plaintiff, Birmingham disappeared while at work and refused to assist a patient, and Plaintiff complained to his supervisor, Dave Cook. (Pl. Dep. 134:18–20.) Cook complained to Gayle Romano, Birmingham's supervisor. ( Id. at 134:18–20.) Birmingham approached Plaintiff about his complaint, and Plaintiff told her that if “she put half the effort into doing her work as she did to this, she'd be a halfway decent nurse.” ( Id. at 134:23–135:7.) Following the confrontation, Birmingham was upset. (Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 76.6–76.8; Krieger Decl. ¶ 7.)

On January 10, 2010, within a day or two of the confrontation between Plaintiff and Birmingham, and a month after the holidayparty, Birmingham filed a complaint of sexual harassment with her supervisor, Romano, against Plaintiff for taking the photograph and allegedly circulating it at the Medical Center. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 77; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 77; Krieger Decl. ¶¶ 7–8.) In Birmingham's complaint, she stated that she first heard about Plaintiff's photograph during the week after the holiday party. (Beldner Decl. Ex. G (“Birmingham Compl.”).) During her deposition, however, Birmingham stated that she filed her complaint the morning after she was informed by Hawkins that Plaintiff was showing the photograph to others at the Medical Center. (Birmingham Dep. 43:3–47:21.)

The day after Birmingham filed her complaint, Plaintiff approached her in the hallway at the Medical Center, asked her why she filed her complaint, and stated that the Medical Center was going to try to fire him. (Pl. Dep. 147:1–24.) Plaintiff told her that he was not showing the photograph around—he “wouldn't do such a thing.” ( Id. at 147:22–148:1.) Birmingham told him that she needed to speak to Romano and that she would get back to Plaintiff. ( Id. at 148:2–4.) Birmingham did not follow up with Plaintiff, so later that evening, Plaintiff sent a text message to Birmingham stating “How could you do that to somebody?” ( Id. at 148:11–16.) After Birmingham did not respond, Plaintiff spoke to her boyfriend Steve, a CT tech at the Medical Center, and asked him what was going on. ( Id. at 148:15–22.) Steve told Plaintiff that Birmingham was not allowed to speak to Plaintiff, and that she “better not and could not rescind her complaint.” ( Id. at 148:21–25.) According to Scott, Birmingham did attempt to rescind her complaint against Plaintiff, but Romano, Birmingham's supervisor, would not allow her to do so. (Scott Decl. ¶ 8.) According to Wilson, Birmingham did not want to file the complaint against Plaintiff in the first place, but the Medical Center management pressured her into doing so. (Wilson Decl. ¶ 11.)

Robbins conducted an investigation as a result of Birmingham's complaint. (Def. 56.1 ¶ 113; Pl. 56.1 ¶ 113.) According to Robbins, she interviewed three individuals identified by Birmingham as having witnessed Plaintiff's inappropriate conduct, and each employee confirmed Birmingham's allegations. (Robbins Aff. ¶¶ 14–20; Hawkins Aff. ¶ 10.) Robbins interviewed Hawkins, who informed Robbins that she wanted “to remain confidential because she feared that Plaintiff would retaliate against her.” (Robbins Aff. ¶ 15.) Hawkins informed Robbins that Plaintiff had shown her the photograph of Birmingham on his telephone and told her he took the photograph underneath Birmingham's dress at the holiday party. ( Id. ¶ 16.) Hawkins also told Robbins that she witnessed Plaintiff showing the photograph to other employees at the workplace. ( Id.) Robbins also spoke with Charles Maury and Bonnie Wilson, two other employees in the radiology department. ( Id. ¶ 17.) Maury told Robbins that he had observed Plaintiff show the photograph to Birmingham at the holiday party and that Birmingham requested that Plaintiff delete the photograph. ( Id. ¶ 18.) Plaintiff later showed Maury the photograph and stated that it was a photograph of Birmingham's “ass.” ( Id. ¶ 18.) Birmingham confided in Maury that she was “distraught over the incident and felt that her personal space had been violated.” ( Id. at ¶ 19.) Wilson told Robbins that Plaintiff had shown her a photograph in the workplace that “looked like ‘flesh’ and advised her that the photograph was a picture he had taken at the Holiday Party of Ms. Birmingham's thigh.” ( Id. at ¶ 20.)

On January 12, 2010, two...