Nereida Morales v. The New York and Presbyterian Hospital

Background

Nereida Morales brought the case while representing herself. She alleged that Chiedozie Anyanwu, identified as a physician’s assistant at New York Presbyterian Hospital, stalked, threatened, and sexually harassed her at work, raped her, and was involved in conduct that led to the end of her employment. She also alleged discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, national origin, and disability.

Morales had filed an earlier discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in August 2017. She later filed a second charge in May 2019 and attached it to her fifth amended complaint. The Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center, and Anyanwu sought dismissal for failure to state a claim—a request arguing that the complaint did not allege enough facts to support a legally valid claim. Morales did not oppose either motion.

Administrative Exhaustion and Timeliness

The court agreed that several claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act were not properly exhausted or were filed too late. The court explained that a person generally must timely file a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before bringing such claims in federal court.

The court determined that claims not included in Morales’s first charge, and not reasonably related to claims in that charge, were unexhausted and time-barred because her second charge was filed more than two years after her employment ended and outside the applicable 300-day period. The court stated that, except for Title VII claims involving sex or sexual-orientation discrimination, hostile-work-environment sexual harassment, and retaliation, the other Title VII and Americans with Disabilities Act claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Claims Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim

The court adopted the recommendation to dismiss with prejudice Morales’s claims for sex and sexual-orientation discrimination under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law; pregnancy discrimination under the state and city laws, to the extent she alleged such a claim; race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act; interference with rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act; and violation of rights under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

The court also dismissed with prejudice Morales’s employment-discrimination claims against Columbia University Medical Center under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the state and city human-rights laws, and, to the extent alleged, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. It dismissed with prejudice her aiding-and-abetting discrimination claim against the University under the state and city human-rights laws, and her discrimination claims against Anyanwu under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The court stated that the complaint lacked facts that plausibly supported those claims and that Morales had already amended her complaint five times.

The court also adopted the recommendation to dismiss Morales’s claims against the City of New York because she did not serve the City with the fifth amended complaint within the required period. The court additionally stated that the complaint did not allege facts suggesting a possible employment-discrimination claim against the City.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court concluded that Morales had alleged enough, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, to proceed with her hostile-work-environment sexual-harassment and retaliation claims against the Hospital. It also allowed her claim against Anyanwu for aiding and abetting discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law to proceed.

In reaching that conclusion, the court read Morales’s self-represented filings liberally and considered the discrimination charge attached to her complaint. The court treated references to “Robert Hunte Jr.” in the second charge as referring to the manager identified as “Roberto Hunt Jr.” in the first charge. Accepting the allegations as true for purposes of the motions, the court found that Morales adequately alleged that she complained to her manager about Anyanwu, that the manager failed to remedy the situation, and that Morales was disciplined and terminated in retaliation.

Disposition

The court overruled the Hospital’s objections and adopted Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker’s report. The Hospital’s and Anyanwu’s motions to dismiss were denied as to, respectively, the Hospital-related hostile-work-environment sexual-harassment and retaliation claims and Anyanwu-related aiding-and-abetting discrimination claim. Those motions were granted as to all other claims against them. Columbia University Medical Center’s motion to dismiss all claims against it was granted. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions and mail Morales a copy of the decision and order.