Harris v. Nyu Langone Med. Ctr.

DIANE HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. NYU LANGONE MEDICAL CENTER et al., Defendants.

12 Civ. 0454 (RA) (JLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

July 9, 2013

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JAMES L. COTT, United States Magistrate Judge.

To The Honorable Ronnie Abrams, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Diane Harris, proceeding pro se, brings this employment discrimination action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), and the New York State and City human rights laws. In her Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), which runs more than 70 pages with exhibits, Harris alleges that she experienced the following discriminatory conduct based on her race and disability; termination of her employment, failure to promote, "unequal terms and conditions of employment," retaliation, and hostile work environment.¹

Harris sues 42 defendants, who will be divided into four separate categories for purposes of this Report and Recommendation:

(1) NYU Langone Medical Center ("NYULMC")²

(2) Non-NYULMC Institutional Defendants, CCA, and PPC

New York University, NYU School of Medicine, NYULMC Board of Trustees, NYULMC Life Trustees, NYU Board of Trustees, NYULM Officers of the Board, NYU Officers of the Board, NYULMC Ex-Officio Trustees, NYULMC Associate Trustees, NYU Life Trustees, NYU Trustee Associates, Corporate Counseling Associates ("CCA"),³ and Psychopharmacology Consultants ("PPC")

(3) Individual Defendants, Group One

Carl Willemin, Irene Kreuscher, Kimberly Glassman, Kevin Kirchen, Alison Brehm, Sharon Martinez, Mona L. Sonnenshein, Irma Rosario, Maritza Ramos-Hernandez, Reginald Odom, Carol Musto-Schiano, Kevin Hannifan, Alyson Franklin⁴

(4) Individual Defendants, Group Two

Robert Grossman, Robert Berne, Andrew Brotman, John Sexton, Andrew Litt, Susan Bowar-Ferres, Amy Horrocks, Daniel T. Driesen, Keith Baker, Robert Glickman, Theresa A. Bischoff, John Harney, Eric Rackow, Dr. Jan Roda, Melissa Schwartz

All Defendants have moved to dismiss the SAC under Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They argue that, for various reasons, the named Defendants are improper parties and that Harris's SAC does not state a claim. They have also moved forsanctions against Harris under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Harris has cross-moved to file a Third Amended Complaint and has also moved for sanctions against Defendants.

For the reasons set forth below, I recommend that Defendants' motions to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. I also recommend that Harris's cross-motion to file her proposed Third Amended Complaint be denied, but recommend instead that Harris be granted leave to file a new Third Amended Complaint, subject to certain conditions discussed below. Finally, I recommend that both motions for sanctions be denied.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 5

A. Facts .................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Harris's General Allegations of Discrimination ............................................................. 5

2. Harris's Failure to Promote Claims ................................................................................ 7

3. Harris's Termination Claims ........................................................................................... 9

4. Harris's Perceived Disability ........................................................................................ 12

B. Procedural History ............................................................................................................ 13

II. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 14

A. Legal Standards ................................................................................................................. 14

1. Standard Under Rule 8 .................................................................................................. 14

2. Standard Under Rule 12(b)(6) ...................................................................................... 16

3. Standard Under Rule 15(a) ........................................................................................... 17

B. Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 18

1. Title VII, ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL Claims Against All Non-NYULMC Institutional Defendants, CCA, and PPC .................................................................... 18

a. The Title VII and ADA Claims are Barred For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies With Respect to the Non-NYULMC Institutional Defendants, CCA, and PPC .................................................................... 18

b. Alternatively, the Title VII, ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL Claims are Barred Against the Non-NYULMC Institutional Defendants, CCA, and PPC Because They Are Not Harris's Employers. ....................................................................................... 23

i. Specific Allegations Against CCA .................................................................... 26

c. Alternatively, Harris Fails to State a Claim Against the Non-NYULMC Institutional Defendants, CCA, and PPC Under Title VII, the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL . . 28

2. Title VII, ADA, and NYSHRL Claims Against NYULMC ......................................... 28a. The Title VII Claim of Termination Based on Race Against NYULMC Should Be Dismissed .................................................................................................................... 28

b. The Title VII Claim for Disparate Treatment Against NYULMC Should Survive and Be Repled .................................................................................................................... 32

c. The ADA Claim for Termination Based on Disability Against NYULMC Should Survive and Be Repled ................................................................................................ 35

d. The Title VII Retaliation Claim Against NYULMC Should Be Dismissed ............... 37

e. The Title VII Hostile Work Environment Claim Against NYULMC Should Be Dismissed .................................................................................................................... 41

f. The NYSHRL Claims for Disparate Treatment and for Termination Based on Disability Should Survive and Be Repled, and All Other NYSHRL Claims Should Be Dismissed .................................................................................................................... 43

g. The Title VII and ADA Failure to Promote Claims Against NYULMC Should Be Dismissed .................................................................................................................... 43

i. The pre-April 7, 2009 Failure to Promote Claims Under Title VII Against NYULMC are Barred by the Statute of Limitations ........................................ 43

ii. The post-April 7, 2009 Failure to Promote Claims Under Title VII Against NYULMC Should Be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim ......................... 46

h. The NYSHRL Failure to Promote Claims Against NYULMC Should Be Dismissed In Part .......................................................................................................................... 48

3. The NYCHRL Claims Against NYULMC ................................................................... 51

a. The NYCHRL Claim for Termination Based on Race Against NYULMC Should Be Dismissed .................................................................................................................... 52

b. The NYCHRL Claim for Disparate Treatment Based on Race Against NYULMC Should Survive and Be Repled ................................................................................... 52

c. The NYCHRL Claim for Termination Based On Disability Against NYULMC Should Survive and Be Repled ................................................................................... 53

d. The NYCHRL Retaliation Claim Against NYULMC Should Be Dismissed ............ 54

e. The NYCHRL Hostile Work Environment Claim Against NYULMC Should Be Dismissed .................................................................................................................... 55

f. The NYCHRL Failure to Promote Claims Against NYULMC Should Be Dismissed in Part .......................................................................................................................... 56

4. The Title VII and ADA Claims Against All Individual Defendants Should Be Dismissed .................................................................................................................... 58

5. The NYSHRL and NYCHRL Claims Against All Individual Defendants Should Be Dismissed in Part ........................................................................................................ 59

6. All Other Claims Should Be Dismissed ........................................................................ 62

a. The Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claim Should Be Dismissed .......... 62

b. The HIPAA Claim Should Be Dismissed ................................................................... 63c. The Libel/Slander Claim Should Be Dismissed ......................................................... 63

d. The Claim Brought Under § 1983 Should Be Dismissed ........................................... 64

e. All Other Miscellaneous Claims Should Be Dismissed ............................................. 65

7. Given the Liberal Pleading Standards of Rule 15(a), Harris Should Be Permitted to File a Third Amended Complaint, Subject to Certain Guidelines ..................................... 65

8. Motions For Sanctions

...