Cale v. Mount Sinai Business Health

Background

Rehana Cale sued her former employer, Mount Sinai Business Health, and her former supervisor, Charles Psarreas. She asserted gender-discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Cale alleged that Mount Sinai’s testing facilities were unsafe and that Psarreas responded in a verbally abusive and intimidating way after she raised safety concerns. She said Psarreas did not treat men who raised similar concerns the same way. She also claimed that she complained about gender discrimination to Mount Sinai personnel and that the defendants retaliated by placing her on performance improvement plans and terminating her.

The defendants presented evidence of concerns about Cale’s performance and workplace conduct, including complaints about her management style, collegiality, scheduling, billing, financial information, absenteeism, and treatment of subordinates. Cale was placed on a performance improvement plan on November 23, 2020, received an amended plan on January 6, 2021, and was terminated after she did not resign when given that option. The court also noted that Cale, who was represented by counsel, did not properly dispute many facts in the defendants’ required statement of facts; the court therefore treated those facts as admitted when the record supported them.

Title VII discrimination claim

The court treated Cale’s Title VII sex-discrimination claim as primarily a hostile-work-environment claim. To proceed, she had to show that the workplace was sufficiently severe or pervasive that a reasonable person would find it hostile or abusive and that the conduct occurred because of her sex.

The court held that Mount Sinai was entitled to summary judgment. It concluded that the instances in which Psarreas allegedly raised his voice or criticized Cale were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a legally actionable hostile work environment. Cale had not identified explicit gender-based insults or ridicule, and the court found that she presented no evidence showing that Psarreas’s conduct or other employees’ conduct resulted from gender discrimination. The court also stated that she had not identified a similarly situated male employee who was treated differently. To the extent Cale asserted a separate disparate-treatment theory, the court held that it also failed because she had not identified a similarly situated employee or otherwise raised an inference of discrimination.

Title VII retaliation claim

Cale argued that the performance improvement plans and her termination were retaliation for her complaints about gender discrimination. The court held that the plans were not adverse employment actions recognized under Title VII, so it considered only whether her termination was retaliatory.

The court concluded that Cale had not provided evidence, beyond her own conclusory statements, that she was terminated because of her discrimination complaints. Even assuming she could establish an initial retaliation case, the court found that Mount Sinai had offered legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the termination: documented performance problems and numerous complaints received while she was on the performance plan. Cale’s assertions that the complaints were fabricated, and the timing of her termination after her complaints, were insufficient by themselves to show that those reasons were a pretext for retaliation.

State and city claims

After granting summary judgment on the federal Title VII claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over Cale’s New York State and New York City claims. The court dismissed those claims without prejudice rather than deciding their merits.

Disposition

The court granted the motion for summary judgment with respect to Cale’s Title VII claims against Mount Sinai Business Health. It dismissed Cale’s state and city law claims without prejudice, directed the Clerk to terminate all pending motions, and closed the case.