Schneidermesser v. Nyu Grossman Sch. of Med.

1

EILEEN SCHNEIDERMESSER, Plaintiff, v. NYU GROSSMAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, Defendant.

No. 21 Civ. 7179 (DEH)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 10, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER

DALE E. HO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Eileen Schneidermesser (“Schneidermesser” or “Plaintiff”) brings suit against Defendant NYU Grossman School of Medicine at NYU Langone Nassau Gastroenterology Associates (“NYU” or “Defendant”), alleging that she was unlawfully terminated due to age discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §623(a)-1, and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y Exec. Law § 290. See generally Compl., ECF No 1. Before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 61. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from the Complaint, Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“SMF”), ECF No. 63, and evidentiary submissions in connection with Defendant's motion. The facts are either undisputed or, if disputed, resolved in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party with all reasonable inferences drawn in her favor. See Horn v. Medical Marijuana, Inc., 80 F.4th 130, 135 (2d Cir. 2023).^[1] The Court “accept[s] all sworn statements by [the plaintiff] as to matters on which she was competent to testify, including what she did, what she observed, and what she was told by company managers.” Davis-Garett v. Urb. Outfitters, Inc., 921 F.3d 30, 46 (2d Cir. 2019). It disregards any statement that is “not based upon the affiant's personal knowledge,” “contain[s] inadmissible hearsay,” or “make[s] generalized and conclusory statements.” Geo-Grp. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Shah, No. 15 Civ. 1756, 2020 WL 5743516, at *11 n.8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2020).

Plaintiff became an NYU billing coordinator in 2012 when the practice she had been working at, Nassau Gastroenterology, was acquired by NY U.SMF ¶ 5, 7. When NYU took over the practice, Plaintiff received a copy of NYU's policies, including its workplace conduct policies and procedures (“Rules of Conduct”). Id. ¶ 8. Among other things, the Rules of Conduct require employees to exercise good judgment and prohibit employees from “[u]sing abusive, obscene or profane language” in the workplace. Id. ¶ 3; see also Cabrera Decl. Ex. 1, Rules of Conduct 3, ECF No. 61-4. An employee's violation of the Rules of Conduct can lead to disciplinary action, up to and including termination. SMF ¶ 4.

When NYU took over the practice in 2012, Plaintiff reported directly to Office Supervisor Mindy Golomb (“Golomb”), who is 71 years old. Id. ¶¶ 9, 65. Golomb also previously worked for Nassau Gastroenterology. Id. ¶ 10. Plaintiff and Golomb became close friends while working together at Nassau Gastroenterology and NYU. Id. ¶ 11.

In 2018, Plaintiff began reporting directly to Practice Manager Heather Dufficy (“Dufficy”). See Compl. ¶ 8; SMF ¶ 14. Dufficy, who was approximately 48 years old during the relevant period, was responsible for, inter alia, employee evaluations and employee relations issues. SMF ¶¶ 16, 62. Dufficy completed Plaintiff's 2020 performance evaluation and rated Plaintiff “Successful.” SMF ¶ 17.

Dufficy states that, in 2019, she overheard Plaintiff cursing and making derogatory comments while at the front desk and within patient care areas. See Cabrera Decl. Ex. 4, Dufficy Dep. Tr. 33:11-24; 52:23-53:14, ECF No. 64-4. She further states that she counseled Plaintiff against using offensive language. See SMF ¶ 21. On August 29, 2019, Dufficy sent an email to Plaintiff stating, “[i]n follow up to yesterday's conversation, inappropriate/foul/offensive language will not be tolerated in the workplace.” See Schneidermesser Decl. Ex. S, ECF No. 6424.

A. Alleged Discriminatory Treatment

Beginning in 2018, Dufficy referred to Plaintiff as “old lady” and “grandma” and told her it was time “to retire.” See Schneidermesser Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 64. At some point during Plaintiff's employment, other colleagues, including Jennine Jones (“Jones”) and Sandra Radovic (“Radovic”) also called Plaintiff “Old Lady” and told her it was “[t]ime for hearing aids.” Id. ¶ 19. Because she feared losing her job, Plaintiff did not report any of these comments to NYU's Human Resources (“HR”). See id. ¶ 5; see SMF ¶ 30.

B. Complaint, Investigation, and Termination

On or around April 14 or 15, 2021, Jones, a 52-year-old African American woman, verbally told Dufficy that she was “uncomfortable working with [Plaintiff]” because of her “discriminatory comments.” See SMF ¶ 63; Cabrera Decl. Ex. 6, Jones Decl. ¶ 11, ECF No. 619; Dufficy Dep. Tr. 86:5-9 (stating that Dufficy first received the verbal complaint from Jones regarding Plaintiff's inappropriate language on or about April 14, 2021.). Those comments included: telling Jones she did not “look black”; referring to Chinese people as “Chinks”; telling patients over the phone to “speak English”; and claiming that immigrants “are being thrown over the wall” and “bringing COVID into this country.” See Jones Decl. ¶¶ 9, 12; Dufficy Dep. Tr. 87:21-88:14.

After Jones complained about Plaintiff, Dufficy contacted Nicole Lucca (Assistant Site Director) and Joe Antonik (Site Director) for guidance, and they instructed Dufficy to report Jones' complaint to HR. SMF ¶ 30. On April 15, 2021, Dufficy emailed Claudia Rose (“Rose”) (HR Generalist) about Plaintiff's behavior and asked whether it was grounds for termination. Id. ¶ 31. Rose instructed Dufficy to investigate the complaint. Id. ¶ 32. Rose further instructed Dufficy to obtain a written statement from Jones regarding the complaint, and she did. Id. ¶¶ 3335. In response, Jones sent Dufficy a text message on April 16, 2021, that memorialized her complaint. Id. ¶ 35. Jones further wrote to “express [her] interest [in] a transfer so [she] did not have to work with [Plaintiff]” anymore. Id. Dufficy forwarded Jones' text message to Rose, Antonik, and Lucca via email on April 16, 2023, and asked how to proceed. Id. ¶ 36. Rose directed Dufficy to obtain a statement from Sandra Radovic (“Radovic”), another one of Plaintiff's co-workers who is approximately 44 years old, and to “discuss the allegations with [Plaintiff].” Id. ¶¶ 37, 64.

Dufficy interviewed Radovic, who confirmed that she sat in close proximity to Plaintiff and substantiated Jones' testimony regarding Plaintiff's alleged derogatory statements. Id. ¶ 39. Radovic also reported that Plaintiff called her a “snitch,” an “ass kisser,” and a “bitch.” Id. ¶ 40. Radovic submitted her concerns in writing, which Dufficy forwarded to Rose, Antonik, and Lucca on April 16, 2021. Id. ¶ 42.

Plaintiff's long-time co-worker, office supervisor, and friend, Golomb, also confirmed that Plaintiff would regularly use inappropriate language in the office. Id. ¶ 43. After NYU took over the practice, Golomb told Plaintiff to watch what she was saying in the workplace in front of people. Id. ¶ 44. Plaintiff responded that she could not. See id. ¶ 45.

On April 16, 2021, Dufficy and another member of the leadership team, Michelle Edmunds (“Edmunds”) spoke to Plaintiff about the complaints, and Plaintiff denied making the statements. Id. ¶¶ 46-47. After that meeting, Dufficy emailed Rose, Antonik, Lucca, and Irina Dolinsky (“Dolinsky”) (HR staff) a summary of the meeting and asked if they needed any “additional information” for the investigation. Id. ¶¶ 38, 48. Rose instructed Dufficy to confirm whether “there [were] other employees who sit in the vicinity of [Plaintiff], [Jones,] and [Radovic]” who could be interviewed and instructed Dufficy to follow up with Dolinsky to “discuss next steps.” Id. ¶ 49. Dufficy confirmed that no other employee overheard the entire incident. Id. ¶ 50. In response to Dufficy's findings, Dolinsky instructed Dufficy to draft a “termination notice that [Dolinsky] w[ould] present to [NYU's Employee and Labor Relations Department] for approval.” Id. ¶ 51. Dolinsky revised the termination letter with Dufficy. Id. ¶ 53. Dolinsky also asked [Employee and Labor Relations Department] employee Aimee Weiner (“Weiner”) for her recommendation on how to proceed. Id. ¶ 52.

At the conclusion of the investigation, Dolinsky and Weiner approved Dufficy's recommendation to terminate Plaintiff's employment. Id. ¶ 54. On April 29, 2021, NYU terminated Plaintiff's employment for violation of NYU's policies and procedures, particularly its Rules of Conduct. Id. ¶ 58.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “A material fact is one that would affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law, and a dispute about a genuine issue of material fact occurs if the evidence is such that a reasonable [factfinder] could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Sista v. CDC Ixis N. Am Inc., 445 F.3d 161, 169 (2d Cir. 2006). When the movant properly supports its motion with evidentiary materials, the opposing party must establish a genuine issue of fact by citing particular materials in the record. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). The Court is “required to accept all sworn statements by [the non-movant] as to matters on which she was competent to testify, including what she did, what she observed, and what she was told by company managers.” Davis-Garett, 921 F.3d at 46. And the Court must “‘give credence to the evidence favoring the [non-movant] as well as that evidence supporting the [movant] that is...