Cilus v. NYU LANGONE HOSPITALS

Background

Sophiana Cilus worked for NYU Langone Hospitals as a physician assistant in the Medical Intensive Care Unit. After receiving positive performance ratings in 2019 and 2020, she was placed on a performance improvement plan in 2021 based on concerns about her medical knowledge, clinical skills, presentations, notes, efficiency, and other work-related matters.

Cilus underwent surgery in July 2021 and requested medical leave and workplace accommodations. Her requests included reduced hours, rest breaks, an ergonomic chair, physical therapy, and reassignment to a part-time position. NYU extended her leave and later placed her temporarily in another position with shifts of no more than 10 hours. During that temporary period, Cilus applied for positions in other NYU departments but received no offers.

In April 2022, Cilus again requested permission to work shifts of no more than 10 hours. NYU stated that the Medical Intensive Care Unit could not accommodate that schedule because providers needed to work the regular shift and participate in patient handoffs. NYU told Cilus that she could be released from employment if she could not return to the standard schedule. After Cilus said she could not return under that schedule, she did not report for her scheduled shift on April 25, 2022. NYU terminated her that day, citing her failure to return and insufficient notice of her absence.

Claims and Summary-Judgment Standard

Cilus asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the New York Labor Law. Her claims alleged disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, whistleblower violations, and unlawful withholding of unused vacation pay.

NYU moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is legally entitled to judgment. The court considered the evidence in the light most favorable to Cilus.

Disability Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate

The court granted summary judgment to NYU on Cilus’s failure-to-accommodate claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court held that the ability to work the Medical Intensive Care Unit’s regular 12.5-hour shift, including being present for patient handoffs, was an essential function of Cilus’s job. The court relied on NYU’s evidence that handoffs were necessary for continuity of care and patient safety.

Because Cilus repeatedly requested a maximum 10-hour shift, the court concluded that she could not perform that essential function with the accommodation she requested. The court also noted that NYU extended her leave, provided a temporary position with 10-hour shifts, helped her seek other positions, and held open her original position during the temporary assignment. The court therefore concluded that the accommodation claims could not proceed, including under the more protective standard of the New York City Human Rights Law.

The court also granted summary judgment on Cilus’s adverse-employment-action disability claims. Under the federal and state laws, the court found that she could not establish that she was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation. Under the New York City law, the court found that the undisputed evidence showed NYU terminated her for failing to return to work as scheduled and for giving insufficient notice of her absence, rather than for a discriminatory reason.

Retaliation Claims

The court granted summary judgment to NYU on the retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court recognized that Cilus engaged in protected activity by requesting leave and accommodations and by submitting a workplace complaint. It also found that the timing of her April 2022 accommodation request and complaint, followed by her termination five days later, was enough at the initial stage to support a possible causal connection.

The court nevertheless held that NYU provided a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the termination: Cilus did not return to the scheduled shift and gave notice of her absence only shortly before the shift began, contrary to the Medical Intensive Care Unit’s call-out policy. The court found that Cilus did not provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that this explanation was a cover for retaliation.

The court separately granted summary judgment on the Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim. It found that the approximately six-month gap between the end of Cilus’s approved leave and her termination was too long, by itself, to support an inference of retaliation. The court also found that NYU’s efforts to facilitate her return to work and the fact that the performance-improvement process began before her leave did not support retaliatory intent.

Whistleblower Claim

The court found that Cilus abandoned her New York Labor Law whistleblower claim because her opposition brief did not address NYU’s arguments for summary judgment on that claim. The court therefore granted summary judgment to NYU on the whistleblower claim.

Unused Vacation Pay

The court denied summary judgment on Cilus’s New York Labor Law claim concerning unused vacation pay. NYU’s policy stated that an employee who failed to provide sufficient written notice would lose unused vacation pay, but that language appeared in the policy section concerning resignations. The policy separately defined a resignation as a voluntary separation, a discharge as an involuntary separation for cause, and a release as an involuntary separation for non-disciplinary reasons.

Because Cilus’s termination letter said that she was “released from employment,” and because the record could support characterizing her separation as a discharge or release rather than a resignation, the court held that a jury could reasonably find that she was entitled to payment for unused vacation time. The court therefore denied NYU’s motion for summary judgment on that claim.

Disposition

Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted summary judgment in favor of NYU Langone Hospitals on Cilus’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, as well as on the New York Labor Law whistleblower claim. The court denied summary judgment on the New York Labor Law unlawful wage reduction claim concerning unused vacation pay.