Findley v. Carter

Background

Loraine Findley brought discrimination claims under federal, state, and local law based on alleged sexual harassment during her employment with Henry J. Carter Specialty Hospital and Nursing Home. She alleged that the harassment occurred from 2016 through 2019 while she worked at the facility. The action had already been resolved as to the City of New York, the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Henry J. Carter Specialty Hospital and Nursing Home, and the individual defendants other than Henry J. Carter.

Carter was the chairman of Wheelchair Charities, a nonprofit that provided motorized wheelchairs to patients in New York City-area hospitals. He had donated substantial sums to City hospitals, and the hospital facility was named after him. Findley asserted that she believed Carter was a hospital employee because of his office at the hospital, his presence there, meetings with hospital staff, interactions with visitors, statements about the facility and hiring, use of a hospital vehicle, and donations to the hospital. Carter disputed or clarified several of those facts and maintained that his hospital activities related to his charitable work.

Motion and Legal Standard

Carter moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Complaint in full. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion.

The federal claim was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that provides a way to seek relief for violations of federal constitutional or statutory rights by a person acting under color of state law. The court explained that a private person’s conduct may qualify as state action under several tests, including when the person is involved in joint activity with the state or has a sufficiently close connection with the state. The connection must relate to the conduct that allegedly caused the injury.

Federal Claim

Carter argued that he was not a City or hospital employee or policymaker and that his conduct could not be attributed to the state. The court treated this argument as going to the merits of the Section 1983 claim, rather than to subject-matter jurisdiction, because acting under color of state law is an element of the claim.

The court held that Findley had not shown the required connection between Carter and the hospital in relation to the alleged sexual harassment. She did not assert that the hospital controlled Carter, delegated authority to him, or encouraged him to present himself as a hospital representative, employee, or owner. The court found that most of the conduct tying Carter to the hospital involved his charitable activities and donations. Although those activities may have given him informal influence, the record did not show the extensive state-private entanglement needed to establish state action.

The court also concluded that the hospital’s alleged failure to address the harassment afterward did not make the harassment a jointly undertaken activity. Viewing the evidence in Findley’s favor, the court found no state action and ruled that her Section 1983 claim failed. It therefore granted Carter’s motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim.

State and Local Claims

After granting summary judgment on the only federal claim against Carter, the court declined to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Findley’s state and local claims. The court dismissed those claims without prejudice to litigation in a forum with authority to hear them.

Disposition

The court granted Carter’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed Findley’s remaining claims against him, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, terminated the pending motions, and closed the case. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order on March 31, 2025.