Shkoza v. NYC Health and Hospital Corporation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-03646
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
Shkoza v. NYC Health and Hospital Corporation: Judge Abrams denied reconsideration and relief from judgment after granting the former employer summary judgment.
Ardiana Shkoza and NYC Health and Hospital Corporation; the court denied Shkoza’s request to revisit the prior summary-judgment decision and directed entry of judgment for the defendant.
What happened
In Shkoza v. NYC Health and Hospital Corporation, Ardiana Shkoza, representing herself, challenged her April 2019 termination from a temporary hospital-care-investigator position. She asserted retaliation and discrimination claims under federal, New York State, and New York City laws. The court previously dismissed some claims and later granted the defendant summary judgment on the remaining claims.
Shkoza asked the court to reconsider that decision and provide relief from the final judgment. She argued that the court had made legal and factual errors, overlooked a change in the law, and treated her unfairly. She also argued that the defendant had not established the necessary facts and that the court had mishandled the evidence.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Shkoza’s motion. Judge Abrams said Shkoza had not identified overlooked controlling law or evidence, and that her arguments mainly sought to relitigate issues already decided. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish retaliation or gender discrimination and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendant.
The detailed version
- Shkoza v. NYC Health and Hospital Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-03646
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 4, 2025
Background
Ardiana Shkoza, proceeding without a lawyer, sued her former employer, NYC Health and Hospital Corporation, over her termination from a temporary hospital care investigator position in the billing department of Jacobi Medical Center. She asserted retaliation and discrimination claims under federal, New York State, and New York City law.
In September 2021, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. It dismissed Shkoza’s race, national-origin, and age-discrimination claims but allowed retaliation claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, along with a gender-discrimination claim under the New York City Human Rights Law, to proceed. After discovery, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on March 13, 2024.
Motion for reconsideration
Shkoza moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to reconsider the summary-judgment decision and under Rule 60(b)(1) for relief from the final judgment. Rule 59(e) permits a party to seek alteration or amendment of a judgment in limited circumstances, such as an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error. Rule 60(b)(1) permits relief from a judgment for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
Shkoza argued that the court had misunderstood the case, applied res judicata principles, failed to credit her testimony, credited what she described as the defendant’s false testimony, and failed to require the defendant to prove material facts. She also claimed that she had not received various documents mailed by the Clerk of Court.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected Shkoza’s arguments concerning res judicata and a state-court consent judgment because the court had not relied on res judicata in its judgment, neither party had raised it in briefing, and no state-court consent judgment was at issue in the case.
The court also found that Shkoza had not identified any controlling decision or other information that the court had overlooked. Although she asserted that there had been an intervening change in controlling law, she cited no supporting case law, and the court was unaware of any change in law that would alter its earlier decision.
The court explained that reconsideration is not a way to relitigate issues already decided or present a case under new theories. It stated that it had considered the record evidence cited by Shkoza and had determined that the evidence was insufficient to survive summary judgment.
The court further rejected Shkoza’s argument that the defendant had failed to prove material facts. On summary judgment, the court explained, the moving party must show that there is no genuine dispute about any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once that showing is made, the opposing party must present specific evidence showing a genuine factual dispute. The court concluded that Shkoza had not done so.
The court also stated that it had construed the facts and resolved ambiguities in Shkoza’s favor, as required when evaluating summary judgment. It reiterated its earlier conclusion that Shkoza had not established a basic case of retaliation or gender discrimination. The court added that, even if she had established such a case, she had not rebutted the defendant’s stated legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for firing her with evidence that the reason was a pretext. The record contained substantial evidence of poor job performance and personality conflicts, according to the court.
Regarding Shkoza’s claim that she did not receive documents from the Clerk of Court, the court stated that she could write to the court to request documents filed on the docket and reminded her that she was responsible for notifying the court in writing of any address change.
Disposition
The court denied Shkoza’s motion for reconsideration and relief from final judgment. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions at ECF Nos. 91 and 101, enter judgment for the defendant, and mail Shkoza a copy of the opinion and order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.