BAUMAN v. MOUNT SINAI HOSPITAL (2020)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered April 17, 2019, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint alleging violations of the New York City Human Rights Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for temporarily suspending plaintiff in 2005 for allegedly administering a pill to his patients that induces labor, at his office and without his patients' knowledge, requiring him to enter into an interim agreement that partially restored his hospital privileges pending investigation, and ultimately terminating his position for violating the interim agreement (see Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 305, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998 [2004]).  Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants' explanations were pretextual (see id.) or whether discrimination was one of a number of motives for their decisions (see Bennett v. Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 A.D.3d 29, 40–41, 936 N.Y.S.2d 112 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 811, 945 N.Y.S.2d 645, 968 N.E.2d 1001 [2012]).

There is no evidence in the record supporting plaintiff's contention that defendants' employment decisions were motivated by animus toward his Orthodox Jewish faith.  Nor is there evidence tending to establish a nexus between any alleged discriminatory behavior toward plaintiff's patients by nurses and another physician and the employment decisions underlying plaintiff's claim (see Godbolt v. Verizon N.Y. Inc., 115 A.D.3d 493, 981 N.Y.S.2d 694 [1st Dept. 2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 901, 995 N.Y.S.2d 709, 20 N.E.3d 655 [2014]).  The employment decisions followed a 10 year history of warnings, monitoring and interim suspensions regarding plaintiff's practices in caring for his patients admitted to the hospital.  Some of the prior complaints concerned claims that plaintiff was admitting more patients to the hospital for labor and delivery than he could personally handle and that he did not provide for adequate cover by other physicians.  After investigation, although the hospital could not determine whether plaintiff induced labor without his patients' consent, it did conclude that he was overworked and did not have adequate support.  This history well preceded his complaints of discrimination against his patients.

Plaintiff's reliance on the temporal proximity of his internal complaints and the adverse employment actions to raise an issue of fact as to retaliation is insufficient, especially since he was engaging in similar conduct that prompted numerous disciplinary measures in the 10 years preceding the 2005 allegations (see Cadet–Legros v. New York Univ. Hosp. Ctr., 135 A.D.3d 196, 206–207, 21 N.Y.S.3d 221 [1st Dept. 2015]).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.