In Griffith v MetroPlus Health Plan Inc., No. 505258/2017, 78 Misc. 3d 1241(A), 188 N.Y.S.3d 913, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50499(U), 2023 WL 3637957 (Sup Ct, May 16, 2023), the court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of race discrimination.
From the decision:
In the instant case, Defendants put forward evidence of nondiscriminatory motivation, including, credible evidence of Plaintiff’s unsatisfactory work performance, namely the OMIG audit that resulted in Defendant MetroPlus being required to return millions of dollars to the government due to overcharges. Further, Defendants showed that white employee Linda Cummings, who managed Plaintiff’s unit during a period also addressed by the OMIG audit, was demoted as a result. Cf. id. (plaintiff failed to show that a similarly situated employee was treated differently than him). In addition, Plaintiff was replaced by a person of the same race, akin to the replacement of the plaintiff in Bennett. Cf. id. at 46 (plaintiff replaced by older employee). Considering those factors, along with the small and vague sample size provided by the instant Plaintiff, it would also appear that Plaintiff’s evidence of discrimination is questionable, at best.
While Defendants’ burden is heavy to prevail on its summary judgment motion as a matter of law where the facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and the non-moving party bears no burden to otherwise persuade the court against summary judgment, the proof presented by Defendants warrants this Court’s granting of summary judgment, as was done in Bennett and Ellison. In reviewing the deposition testimony and exhibits in the instant case, the Court does not conclude that Defendants’ evidence was false or misleading, and to the extent that Plaintiff believes she was being singled-out, that would be insufficient to rebut Defendant’s credible evidence of Plaintiff’s poor performance necessitating at a minimum a demotion. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s proof that she worked for Defendants for more than ten years, was promoted and received strong performance reviews prior to her complaints about her office size and the OMIG audit, Defendants put forward evidence of nondiscriminatory motivations for its actions. … Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants Weinberg and Schwartz made racially offensive comments is not only disputed but is unsupported by corroborating or credible evidence, especially given the magnitude of the adverse financial impact suffered by Defendant MetroPlus as a result of the audit.
Based on this, the court held that summary judgment was warranted.