In Richmond v. Montefiore Medical Center, 21 Civ. 8700 (PGG), 2023 WL 6216271 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2023), the court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s gender-based discrimination (termination) claim asserted under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
Here is the court’s discussion of the third/final “pretext” step of the pertinent analysis:
Richmond has proffered evidence that the Hospital’s alleged legitimate reasons for terminating her employment are pretextual, however, including her long and successful career at Montefiore, her record of repeated promotions, excellent performance reviews and bonuses, the “scope and diversity of her responsibilities” at the Hospital, and her “instrumental” role in the Hospital’s acquisition strategy. Richmond also cites (1) the statement from Alfredo Cabrera, Montefiore’s head of Human Resources, at the time of her termination, that Richmond “did nothing wrong”; and (2) evidence that Ozuah said “let’s make it hurt” in directing that Richmond be fired. (Pltf. R. 56.1 Cntrstmt. (Dkt. No. 113) ¶¶ 119, 169-200, 219-20, 267-68, 326) “Once there is some evidence that at least one of the reasons proffered by defendant is false, misleading, or incomplete, a host of determinations properly made only by a jury come into play, such as whether a false explanation constitutes evidence of consciousness of guilt, an attempt to cover up the alleged discriminatory conduct, or an improper discriminatory motive co-existing with other legitimate reasons. These will be jury questions except in the most extreme and unusual circumstances.” Bennett, 92 A.D.3d at 43.
The court thus concluded that “although Montefiore has proffered a legitimate basis for its decision to fire Richmond, it has not demonstrated as a matter of law that gender animus ‘play[ed] no role’ in that decision” and, therefore, that defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s discrimination claims.