Court Opinion

ID: 9959896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:11:22.820736+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:58.825641
License: Public Domain

Grant v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31209(U)
                      April 9, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 152844/2022
                Judge: Arthur F. Engoron
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 152844/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

                            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                      NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:       HON. ARTHUR F. EN GO RON                          PART                               37
                                                                Justice
          -~-----------------X                                              INDEX NO.            152844/2022
            LUCRETIA GRANT,
                                                                            MOTION DATE           05/24/2023
                                               Plaintiff,
                                                                            MOTION SEQ. NO.           002
                                         -v-
            NEWYORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS
                                                                                 DECISION + ORDER ON
            CORPORATION,
                                                                                       MOTION
                                               Defendant.

          ----------------------X
           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
           35,36,38,39,40,42
           were read on this motion to                                           DISMISS

          Upon the foregoing documents, and for the reasons stated hereinbelow, defendant's motion to
          dismiss, pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7), is denied.

          Factual and Procedural Background
          As alleged in her Amended Complaint, plaintiff, Lucretia Grant, is a 66-year-old African
          American female who defendant, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, employed
          for 43 years. NYSCEF Doc. No. 32 ,r 4. Plaintiff is a licensed technologist with a Bachelor of
          Science in Health Care Administration and a Master of Science in Health Care Management. Id.
          From October 1989 through December 31, 2021, she worked at Elmhurst Hospital, including as
          an Associate Supervisor Radiographer in the Radiology Department from 2003 through July
          2017. Id. ifif 9-10.

          Many of plaintiffs allegations arise out of interactions with non-parties George Leconte, a
          "younger Haitian-American" who was the Executive Director of Radiology at Elmhurst
          Hospital; and Jasmine Bostock, a 37-year-old Caucasian woman who was Mr. LeConte's
          "immediate direct subordinate". NYSCEF Doc. No. 32 ,r,r 11-12, 16, 7.

          Plaintiff alleges that she was one of two women, one of five African Americans, and the oldest
          of the fifty technicians employed in the Elmhurst Hospital Radiology Department. NYSCEF
          Doc. No. 32 ,r 27. During her employment, plaintiff alleges that, inter alia: Mr. LeConte yelled
          at, insulted and demeaned (ill:. ,r,r 14, 19, 22(3 7), 22(40), 22(49)); she was forced to train her
          replacement, Ms. Bostock, who was then given more technicians to support her despite having a
          lesser workload (ill:. ,r,r 16, 22(5)); Ms. Bostock disparaged and yelled at her (id. ,r 22(34)); she
          was given an "excessive workload" (id. ,r 22(45)); she was excluded from meetings and
          communications (id. ,r 31); she was given less training than her peers (ill:. ,r 22(47)); and she was
          generally discriminated against due to her race, age, and gender.

           152844/2022 .GRANT, LUCRETIA vs. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS                    Page 1 of4
           CORPORATION
           Motion No. 002

[* 1]                                                       1 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 152844/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

           Plaintiff alleges that in February, May, and August of 2017 she complained, formally and
           informally, about the disparate treatment to which Mr. Leconte subjected her. NYSCEF Doc.
           No. 32 ,r,r 18-21, 22(11). Those allegations included that he:

                           discriminated against Plaintiff, humiliated her in front of patients
                           and peers and would often use intimidated [sic] language, belittle
                           her and refuse to engage in any professional discussions with her.

                           In addition, he would say comments to Plaintiff such as "You are
                           nothing" ["]What do I need you for!", "You do not do nothing [sic]
                           here", "You're ineffective".

           NYSCEF Doc. No. 32 ,r,i 18-21.

           Plaintiff alleges that after she complained, inter alia: in either February or July 2017, she was
           demoted (NYSCEF Doc. No. 32 ,r,i 10, 22(8)); in January 2018, Mr. LeConte "badgered [her]
           constantly about patients" (id. ,i 22(16)); parties micromanaged her (id. if22(20)); in October of
           2018 her lunch hour was moved by half an hour without notice and Ms. Bostock questioned
           plaintiff about leaving the floor early "in front of the school's [sic?] administrators" (id. ,r
           22(22)); in July 2019, someone "belittled [plaintiff] for not eating fast enough during lunch" fuL.
           ,r 22(24); and she was "monitored as to who she could speak to" (id. ,r 22(28)).
            Plaintiff alleges she was constructively terminated in 2021, compelling her to resign due to the
            hostile work environment. NYSCEF Doc. No. 32 ,r,r 9-10.

           On April 4, 2022, plaintiff commenced this action alleging that she was subjected to disparate
           treatment and a hostile work environment due to her age, gender and race and suffered retaliation
           and constructive discharge. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: (1)
           violation of Executive Law§ 296(l)(a) ("New York State Human Rights Law" or "NYSHRL");
           and violation of the Administrative Code of City of NY§ 8-107 ("New York City Human Rights
           Law'' or "NYCHRL"). NYSCEF Doc. No. 32.

            Defendant now moves, pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(7), to dismiss. NYSCEF Doc. No. 30.
            Defendant argues that plaintiff has failed to state a viable cause of action alleging hostile work
            environment, constructive discharge, or retaliation under NYSHRL or NYCHRL, and, in any
            event, that her claims are mostly time-barred. NYSCEF Doc. No. 33.

           In opposition, plaintiff argues that: her allegations are to be construed liberally under NYSHRL
           and that she has sufficiently advanced a claim to infer discrimination, hostile work environment,
           retaliation, and constructive discharge under NYSHRL and NYCHRL. NYSCEF Doc. No. 36.
           Plaintiff also argues she is not time-barred pursuant to the continuing wrong doctrine. Id.

           Discussion
           In determining whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss pursuant
           to CPLR 321 l(a)(7), "the sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if

             152844/2022 GRANT, LUCRETIA vs. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH ANO HOSPITALS                    Page 2of4
             CORPORATION
             Motion No. 002

[* 2]                                                     2 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 152844/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

           from its four comers factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of
           action cognizable at law a motion for dismissal will fail." Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d
           268, 275 (1977). The court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and
           determine only whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory. See Dye v
           Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn & Queens, 273 AD2d 193 (2000). The court "is not concerned
           with determinations of fact or the likelihood of success on the merits." Detmer v Acampora, 207
           AD2d 477,477 (1994).

                       Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment and Constructive Discharge
           Both the NYSHRL and NYCHRL proscribe employment discrimination based on, inter alia,
           race, and either sex or gender, and they have provisions directing that they be liberally construed
           to accomplish the remedial purposes that they are designed to serve. Executive Law §296(1 )(a);
           Administrative Code§ 8-107(1)(a)(2). "Exceptions to and exemptions from" both statutes "shall
           be construed narrowly in order to maximize deterrence of discriminatory conduct." Executive
           Law § 300; see Administrative Code § 8-l 30(b). "Courts must construe the Human Rights Laws
           broadly in favor of discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent that such a construction is reasonably
           possible." Syeed v Bloomberg L.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 01330 (Ct App, Mar. 14, 2024) (internal
           quotations and citations omitted). However, the "broader purposes of [NYCHRL] do not
           connote an intention that the law operate as a 'general civility code.'" Williams v New York City
           Hous. Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 76 (1st Dept 2009).

           To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: "(1) she is a member
           of a protected class; (2) she was qualified to hold her employment position; (3) she was
           terminated from employment or suffered another adverse employment action; and (4) the
           discharge or adverse action took place under circumstances giving rise to an inference of
           discrimination." Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 305 (2004). .

           Here, according all the facts alleged as true and giving them a liberal construction, plaintiff has
           made out a prima facie case that she was subjected to unequal treatment because of a protected
           characteristic, as she alleges she is a member of a protected class, she was qualified to hold her
           position, she was constructively terminated, and the adverse actions she suffered took place
           under circumstances where discrimination could be inferred.

           Although many of plaintiff's allegations (i.e., having her phone conversations monitored, being
           given an excessive workload, having her means of payment questioned) do not rise to the level
           of a hostile work environment, the persistent belittling she alleges ("You are nothing" ["]What
           do I need you for!", "You do not do nothing [sic] here", "You're ineffective") are sufficient.

           Further, plaintiff sufficiently alleges "that defendant deliberately created working conditions so
           intolerable, difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign."
           Crookendale v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 175 AD3d 1132, 1132 (1st Dept 2019)
           (internal quotation and citation omitted).                  .

                      Retaliation
           t:nd~r ~oth NYS~ and NYCHRL it is unlawful to retaliate against an employee for opposing
           d1scnmmatory practices. Executive Law§ 296(7); Administrative Law§ 8-107(7). To make

            152844/2022 GRANT, LUCRETIA vs. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS
            CORPORATION                                                                           Page 3of4
            Motion No. 002

[* 3]                                                     3 of 4
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 152844/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 43                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/09/2024

            such a claim, a plaintiff must show that: '"(1) she has engaged in protected activity, (2) her
            employer was aware that she participated in such activity, (3) she suffered an adverse
            employment action based upon her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the
            protected activity and the adverse action." Forrest at 312-13. Under NYCHRL, the plaintiff
            must show that defendants took an action that disadvantaged her. Fletcher v Dakota, Inc., 99
            AD3d 43, 51 (1st Dept 2012).

            Here, plaintiff alleges that she engaged in the protected activity of filing complaints in February
            and May 2017, and that defendant demoted her soon after. Although her demotion is vaguely
            alleged - it is unclear if she was demoted in February 2017 or July 2017 - construing the
            Amended Complaint liberally, plaintiffs retaliation claim should not be dismissed, so long as it
            is not time-barred.

                        Continuing Wrong Doctrine
            The statute oflimitations for claims under both NYSHRL and NYCHRL is three years.
            Executive Law§ 297(5); Administrative Law§ 8-502(d). However, a hostile work environment
            claim, by its nature, is predicated on a series of separate acts. See National R.R. Passenger Corp.
            v Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002). Therefore, under the continuing wrong doctrine, even though
            some of the alleged acts may have occurred outside of the limitations period, the claim will be
            considered timely so long as the plaintiff alleges "a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct
            extending into the [limitations] period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint." St.
            Jean Jeudy v City of New York, 142 AD3d 821, 823 (1st Dept 2016) quoting Ferraro v New
            York City Dept. of Educ., 115 AD3d 497, 497-498 (1st Dept 2009).

            The instant action was commenced on April 4, 2022, and, accordingly, all claims that accrued
            prior to April 4, 2019, are time-barred unless the continuing violation doctrine applies.
            However, giving the complaint every favorable inference and construing it liberally, as plaintiff
            has sufficiently pled a continuing wrong, including persistent discrimination, hostile work
            environment, retaliation and, eventually, constructive discharge, the continuing wrong doctrine
            applies and the complaint is not time-barred.

            Conclusion
            Thus, the motion to dismiss is denied.
                                                                           HON. ARTHUR F. ENGORON..l~
                                                                                                                   •

                                                        APR O9 2024
                     4/9/2024
                      DATE                                                    ARTHUR F. ENGORON, J.S.C.

                                     ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         0    DENIED     GRANTED IN PART    ··   □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                    SUBMIT ORDER
             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN      FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

             152844/2022 GRANT, LUCRETIA vs. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS                   Page4of4
             CORPORATION
             Motion No. 002

[* 4]                                                      4 of 4