Haight v. Nyu Langone Med. Ctr., Inc.

KRISTEN HAIGHT, Plaintiff, v. NYU LANGONE MEDICAL CENTER, INC., et al., Defendants.

13 Civ. 4993 (LGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

January 4, 2016

OPINION AND ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:

Plaintiff Kristen Haight's remaining claims against Defendants NYU Langone Medical Center, Inc., NYU Medical Center and NYU School of Medicine (collectively, "NYU") are for: (1) negligent supervision or retention of an unfit employee under New York law; (2) hostile work environment under the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 et seq.; and (3) disability discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 et seq. Defendants move for summary judgment on these remaining claims. For the reasons below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Unless otherwise noted, the facts below are taken from the parties' submissions filed in connection with this motion. Plaintiff did not file responses to each paragraph in Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 Statement and explicitly states that she "does not object to the facts alleged" in Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 Statement.¹ Accordingly, the averments in Defendants' Local Rule56.1 Statement are deemed admitted for purposes of this summary judgment motion to the extent that they are supported by the record. See Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 73 (2d Cir. 2001) (stating that when a non-moving party does not respond to a Local Rule 56.1 Statement, a court may either rely upon that Statement or elect to conduct a review of the record); see also Local Rule 56.1(c) ("Each numbered paragraph . . . 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.").

Plaintiff began working for NYU Hospitals Center ("NYUHC"), a separate entity within NYU Langone Medical Center, in July 1992 as a registered nurse in pediatrics.² After becoming a nurse practitioner, Plaintiff worked in both NYUHC and in the private practice of Dr. Jeffrey Wisoff, who was in charge of the division of pediatric neurosurgery at NYUHC.

In or around January 2005, another nurse practitioner, Michelle Blate, was hired to work in the division of pediatric surgery. Plaintiff began having problems with Blate shortly after Blate began working for NYUHC. Beginning in 2005, Blate called Plaintiff late at night, asking to come over, order in and/or rent a movie, and attempted to initiate sleepovers after work functions. Plaintiff believed that Blate was "sexually obsessed" with her and declined these invitations.

In or around June 2005, Blate attempted to get Plaintiff terminated for not returning Blate's late night phone calls and refusing her advances. In 2006 and 2007, Blate continued attempting to spend time with Plaintiff outside of work by inviting Plaintiff to after work gatherings. Blate occasionally invited Plaintiff to have lunch, go shopping, get her hair blown out and share a cab to and from work related events. During an unspecified period, Blate "made frequent sexual gestures" towards Plaintiff; Blate stroked, grabbed and pulled on her crotch area, picked at her behind or touched her breasts when she spoke with Plaintiff. Plaintiff complained to her supervisors about Blate's behavior, but the complaints were not resolved.

In January 2008, Plaintiff went to the emergency department at NYU because her existing gynecological problems had become increasingly worse. During that visit, Plaintiff asked her physician to avoid putting certain embarrassing information in her chart, including notations about vaginal bleeding and the fact that she was a virgin.

In or around the fall of 2008, Plaintiff discussed her concerns about being a patient at NYUHC with Director of Care Management Maria Brillant and Assistant Manager of Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants Phyllis Marchitelli. Plaintiff told Brillant and Marchitelli that Blate had engaged in inappropriate behavior towards her and that she was concerned that Blate would try to access her medical files. Plaintiff requested that she be identified with a different name when she was treated as a patient at NYU. Marchitelli told Plaintiff that she would be safe, and Brillant said that her name could be changed in the system if necessary.

On January 4 and 5, 2009, Blate breached security and accessed Plaintiff's medical records without permission or a valid reason. A later NYU investigation around November 2009 uncovered this breach.

In 2009 or 2010, or perhaps earlier, while Plaintiff bent over a desk to pick up a scan, Blate put her hands inside Plaintiff's pants, ostensibly to fix Plaintiff's underwear tag. Plaintiff jumped up and pushed Blate's hands off her. Although Plaintiff reported this incident to the NYU Director of Nurse Practitioners and Dr. Wisoff, no action was taken.

In early January 2009, Plaintiff underwent another surgery. During Plaintiff's sick leave following the surgery, Dr. Wisoff called Plaintiff at home with questions about patients. During this call, Dr. Wisoff's daughter spoke with Plaintiff and stated that Plaintiff could treat endometriosis by getting pregnant. On another occasion in 2009, Dr. Wisoff gave Plaintiff a book, advising her that it had a section on women who were cursed by God because they have no children.

Plaintiff returned to work in or around late January 2009. At around the same time, Dr. Roth, who worked in Dr. Wisoff's practice, told Plaintiff that he heard that she had a surgical problem and that she was better now. Plaintiff did not know how Dr. Roth learned about her surgery. Also at around this time, Blate whispered to Plaintiff to ask how she was doing. Because Blate would typically yell, grunt or throw things at Plaintiff, Plaintiff suspected that Blate knew that Plaintiff had undergone a gynecological surgery because Blate had whispered on this occasion. Plaintiff suspected that others had learned about her medical information because, between January and June 2009, another colleague, Maggie Cosme, asked Plaintiff more than once why she was not pregnant yet. These questions and comments led Plaintiff to request that Brillant investigate a potential breach of her medical records around late February 2009. Brillant, however, refused to conduct an investigation because the allegations were based on Plaintiff's hunch.

While Plaintiff was attending a wedding in the Caribbean in early March 2009, Blate left Plaintiff "aggressive" messages asking when she would return to work. Plaintiff testified in her deposition that Blate had called Plaintiff once during the wedding and did not send any text messages, but Plaintiff's affidavit states that she received "regular threatening harassing text messages" from Blate during this period. Around March 5, 2009, Plaintiff again asked Brillant to investigate Blate for potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), and Brillant responded that Blate was already in trouble for reasons unrelated to Plaintiff. In March 2009, Blate again accessed Plaintiff's medical records without authorization, which was revealed by the later investigation.

In or around June 2009, Plaintiff spoke with an administrator at NYU Langone Medical Center, Maria Corbo, regarding her concerns about Blate's suspected unauthorized access of Plaintiff's medical records. Plaintiff told Corbo that she suspected Blate and other staff members knew details in her medical files that only a surgeon with access to those files would know. Corbo called NYU Compliance Officer, Maxine Simon, for guidance on how to handle Plaintiff's situation and then provided Plaintiff with a packet of information and Simon's phone number and encouraged Plaintiff to contact Simon.

Around July 2009, Plaintiff was treated at NYU's emergency room because she injured her ribs. The emergency room doctor recommended a bone scan to determine if her ribs were fractured. Several days later, the bone scan revealed that Plaintiff had fractured several ribs. When a colleague asked Plaintiff if she had broken her ribs, Blate interjected that Plaintiff had not. Since Blate spoke with certainty about Plaintiff's condition, Plaintiff suspected that Blateaccessed her emergency room files in violation of HIPAA because these records did not include the bone scan showing the fractured ribs.

In the fall of 2009, Natasha Antoine, a secretary in Dr. Wisoff's practice, informed Plaintiff that she had learned from another secretary that Plaintiff was a virgin. As of the fall of 2009, Plaintiff had not told anyone in the office that she was a virgin. Around this same period, various doctors asked Plaintiff how she was feeling and whether she was having any more surgeries. In 2009 or 2010, Plaintiff found a substance that looked like strawberry jam on the office toilet seat.

In or around October 26, 2009, Plaintiff informed Simon that she had complained to Brillant that Blate and others may have improperly accessed her medical files on more than one occasion, but Brillant had not conducted an investigation. Simon told Plaintiff to submit a complaint and said that she would follow up with Plaintiff within thirty days of receiving the complaint.

In around November 2009, Plaintiff started looking for other placements at NYU. In December 2009, Plaintiff met with Brillant and Sheila Furjanic, who had replaced Simon as the compliance officer, and told them that she suspected other individuals besides Blate had accessed her medical records in violation of HIPAA. Furjanic responded that NYU could not fire the whole hospital. About a month later, on January 4, 2010, Dr. and Mrs. Wisoff told Plaintiff that Blate was on a leave of absence due to personal space issues. On or around January 5, 2010, Furjanic informed Plaintiff that Blate had been fired for improperly...