TRIEGER v. MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER (2005)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson Roman, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2004, which, in an action for breach of employment contract and age discrimination, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 The motion court correctly found that the memorandum plaintiff circulated to all other department chairs at defendant hospital, strongly criticizing defendant's management and, inter alia, urging his co-chairs “to set things right and reclaim the[ir] prerogatives and responsibilities,” was insubordinate, and that it gave defendant just cause to terminate plaintiff's employment contract (see Crane v. Perfect Film & Chem. Corp., 38 A.D.2d 288, 291, 329 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1972] ).   An employer's determination of good cause justifying termination of an employment contract is entitled to deference, particularly where high-level management employees are involved (see Golden v. Worldvision Enters., 133 A.D.2d 50, 51, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1987], lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 804, 528 N.Y.S.2d 829, 524 N.E.2d 149 [1988];  Speiden v. Innis, Speiden & Co., Inc., 216 App.Div. 408, 215 N.Y.S. 515 [1926] ).

 Applying the burden-shifting analysis articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 [1973], we find that plaintiff's age discrimination claim was properly dismissed for lack of evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the hospital's proffered reason for plaintiff's dismissal, circulation of the insubordinate memorandum, was a pretext for discrimination (see Slatky v. Healthfirst, Inc., 2003 WL 22705123, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20608 [S.D.N.Y.2003] [summary judgment granted to defendant in age discrimination case where plaintiff was terminated for insubordination];  DeMay v. Miller & Wrubel, P.C., 262 A.D.2d 184, 185, 692 N.Y.S.2d 331 [1999];  Mustafa v. Park Lane Hotel, 12 F.Supp.2d 360 [1998], affd. 182 F.3d 900 [1999] ).

Plaintiff was terminated immediately after circulating the insubordinate memorandum, and there is no other evidence in the record to support plaintiff's claim that the hospital's actions were pretextual.