Maynard v. Montefiore Med. Ctr.

SUSAN MAYNARD, Plaintiff, v. MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, MARCIA LUTZ, VAYOLA NELSON,BEVERLEY WINTER, PEARLINE DOUGLAS, DAVIDA HARRIS, Defendants.

No. 18-CV-8877 (LAP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

February 4, 2021

OPINION & ORDER

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:

Before the Court is the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Montefiore Medical Center ("Montefiore"), Marcia Lutz, Vayola Nelson, Beverly Wynter, Pearline Douglas, and Davida Harris (collectively, "Defendants").¹ Plaintiff Susan Maynard opposes the motion.² For the reasons below, the motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

I. Background

"Rule 56.1 of the Local Civil Rules of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of NewYork . . . requires a party moving for summary judgment to submit a statement of the allegedly undisputed facts on which the moving party relies, together with citation to the admissible evidence of record supporting each such fact." Giannullo v. City of New York, 322 F.3d 139, 140 (2d Cir. 2003). Defendant submitted such a statement, along with accompanying declarations and exhibits.³

In the non-moving party's responsive statement, he or she must then "include a correspondingly numbered paragraph responding to each numbered paragraph in the statement of the moving party, and if necessary, additional paragraphs containing a separate, short and concise statement of additional material facts." LOCAL CIV. R. 56.1(b). Each statement in the response "must be followed by citation to evidence which would be admissible." Id. 56.1(d). If the non-moving party "fails to submit a responsive statement, then the facts set forth in the moving party's 56.1 statement are deemed admitted." Truitt v. Salisbury Bank & Tr. Co., No. 18-CV-8386 (NSR), 2020 WL 4208452, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 21, 2020).

Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Statement is not up to snuff. It repeatedly offers conclusory denials--including thirty-five responses offering only a solitary "deny"--without any citations to admissible evidence. (See Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Local Rule 56.1 Statement, dated Apr. 29, 2020 [dkt. no. 62].) Instead, Plaintiff chooses to rely on competing declarations and exhibits to challenge Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement. (See Declaration of Susan Maynard ("Maynard Decl."), dated Apr. 27, 2020 [dkt. no. 64]; Declaration of Christopher J. Berlingieri, dated Apr. 29, 2020 [dkt. no. 66].) Accordingly, "[b]ecause Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1, the Court will deem as admitted those facts set forth in Defendants' 56.1 Statement, to the extent they are supported by the record." Truitt, 2020 WL 4208452, at *1.

a. Plaintiff's Employment

Montefiore hired Plaintiff in 2008 as a per diem nurse on the Eighth Floor of its Children's Hospital ("CHAM 8"). (Defs. 56.1 ¶ 1.) Montefiore hired Plaintiff as a full-time CHAM 8 nurse in January 2014. (Id. ¶ 2.) CHAM 8 treats patients between the ages of three weeks and twenty-one years for a wide variety of health issues, (id. ¶ 3), and Plaintiff's responsibilities included, inter alia, "admitting patients, discharge planning, starting IVs, drawing blood, and reporting to doctors," (id. ¶ 5). During Plaintiff's tenure, she wassupervised by Marcia Lutz, the Administrative Nurse charged with "overseeing all [n]urses on CHAM 8." (Id. ¶ 6.)

b. Plaintiff's Medical Leave and Temporary Shift Change

In January 2016, Plaintiff requested medical leave to recover from surgery, which Montefiore granted. (Id. ¶ 57.) Of that leave, Plaintiff asserts "that she asked for three specific days . . . to be paid through accumulated sick time, but that these days were instead designated as 'voluntary time off.'" (Id. ¶ 58.) Ms. Lutz recalls things differently: She remembers "that Plaintiff specifically requested that these three days be deemed unpaid voluntary sick time." (Id. ¶ 59.) Although Plaintiff was not paid for those days, she chose not to file a grievance with her union. (Id. ¶ 60.)

In April 2016, shortly after Plaintiff returned, CHAM 8 nurses were required to attend State-mandated training. (Id. ¶ 61.) Because Montefiore could only offer the training during daytime hours, Ms. Lutz determined that she needed to rotate shifts temporarily so that all the CHAM 8 nurses could attend the required sessions. (Id. ¶ 62.) Four nurses were rotated onto the night shift for a period of four weeks. (Id.) Plaintiff, who primarily worked daytime shifts, was among those rotated. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 62.) The other three nurses rotated "did not possess a disability," and none had taken "medical leave prior to rotating." (Id. ¶¶ 63-64.) Once the trainingsconcluded, all four nurses resumed their normal daytime shifts. (Id. ¶ 65.)

c. Complaints About Plaintiff

Soon after returning to the dayshift, Plaintiff's employment took a turn for the worse. Between May and October 2017, Montefiore received four complaints regarding Plaintiff from four different individuals, three of whom were mothers of CHAM 8 patients. (See id. ¶¶ 7-37.)

On May 12, 2017, Montefiore received a complaint from the mother of a CHAM 8 patient. (Id. ¶ 7.) That complaint alleged that Plaintiff had "called security on an African American man" who was the "grandfather of a patient." (Id.) The complaint also stated that, after calling security, Plaintiff yelled "this only happens to black people; this don't happen to white people," and "[t]his isn't Nazi Germany." (Id. ¶ 8.) Two employees reported that Plaintiff also referred to the grandfather as a "500-pound black man." (Id. ¶ 12.) As a result, Montefiore investigated Plaintiff for violations of its Non-Discrimination and Harassment Policy ("the Policy").⁴ Ms. Lutz led the investigation, interviewing the complainant and another family member of the grandfather as well as takingstatements from four employees. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 11.) All the witnesses confirmed the allegations. (Id. ¶ 10).

One week later, Ms. Lutz met with Plaintiff to discuss the complaint. (Id. ¶ 13.) Joan Curry, Administrative Nurses Manager, Candice Sering, Union Representative, and Collette Dobbins, Union Delegate, also attended the meeting. (Id.) Plaintiff denied the allegations, although Ms. Lutz's notes indicate that Plaintiff did not provide any witnesses or substance to refute the charges. (Id. ¶ 14). The same parties reconvened for a disciplinary meeting on August 16, 2017, at which Plaintiff received a written warning. (Id. ¶ 15.) That warning detailed the specific rules and policies Plaintiff had violated and cautioned that additional violations would result in further discipline or possible termination. (Id. ¶¶ 16-17.)

The very next day, Montefiore received a second complaint from another mother of a CHAM 8 patient, which stated that Plaintiff had argued with a physician's assistant in front of the patient's family regarding who was more qualified to insert an IV. (Id. ¶ 18.) The complaint then asserted that Plaintiff used excessive force to insert the IV, causing the patient to cry out in pain. (Id. ¶ 19.) After the mother requested another nurse, Plaintiff left without calling for one. (Id. ¶ 20.) Like the first complaint, Ms. Lutz investigated by speaking to the complainant and to CHAM 8 employees. (Id.¶¶ 21-22.) The investigation corroborated the latest allegations. (Id. ¶ 23.)

Just two weeks later, Montefiore received a third complaint from a different CHAM 8 mother, this time asserting that Plaintiff had used inappropriate language. (Id. ¶ 24.) Specifically, the complaint alleged that Plaintiff had said (1) "I can't stand it here these black and Spanish people come here and they take everything"; (2) "[t]hey gave me the African Lion King back there and she stinks"; and (3) "Spanish patients eat up the diapers, they think it's the welfare office." (Id. ¶ 25.) Given the frequency of the complaints against Plaintiff, Ms. Lutz alerted Janice Reyes, Senior Labor and Employee Relations Manager, of the allegations in early September 2017. (Id. ¶ 26.)

In response, Ms. Reyes and Ms. Lutz investigated the third complaint. (Id. ¶ 27.) Both interviewed the complainant, who confirmed that she overheard Plaintiff make the statements at the nursing station near her child's hospital room. (Id. ¶¶ 28-29.) Moreover, Ms. Lutz also spoke with CHAM 8 employees, who corroborated the complainant's account. (Id. ¶ 30.) Shortly thereafter, Ms. Lutz informed David Brodksy, Senior Vice President of Labor and Employee Relations, about the complaints, (id. ¶ 31), and he suggested placing Plaintiff on paid administrative leave pending further investigation, (id. ¶ 32).

On October 16, 2017, Montefiore received a final complaint, which was filed anonymously with Montefiore's Department of Labor and Employee Relations. (Id. ¶ 33.) That complaint alleged that Plaintiff had stated "can you believe that black guy is talking to me that way?" to an African American employee. (Id. ¶ 33.) The complaint also stated that Plaintiff, when discussing a patient, had attributed the patient's "behavior to the patient's ethnic last name and because she was inbreeded." (Id. ¶ 34.) Ms. Reyes asked Ms. Lutz for help investigating the most recent complaint, and Ms. Lutz took statements from the employee and another CHAM 8 worker. (Id. ¶¶ 35-36.) Both corroborated the complaint's account of events. (Id. ¶ 36.)

d. Plaintiff's Termination

On November 17, 2017, Plaintiff met with Ms. Reyes, Ms. Lutz, and Marlena Fontes, a union representative, regarding the latter three complaints. (Id. ¶ 38.) Plaintiff denied the conduct underlying the complaints but could not explain why so many similar complaints had been made. (Id. ¶¶ 39-40.) Instead, for the first time, Plaintiff asserted that her co-workers had made several discriminatory remarks to her. (Id. ¶¶ 41-43.) In response, Montefiore placed Plaintiff on paid administrative leave pending further investigation. (Id. ¶ 44.)

In early December 2017, Ms. Reyes provided copies of...