Blutreich v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc.

Background

Ahna Blutreich sued North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc. and William Rodgers. She alleged retaliation under the federal employment-discrimination law discussed in the opinion as Title VII and under the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion’s opening paragraph refers to “Title VI,” but the legal analysis and disposition refer to Title VII.

Blutreich worked as a physician in the pathology department beginning in July 2010. After Lenox Hill Hospital was acquired by North Shore in December 2011, she worked for Lenox Hill Hospital. She was terminated on April 19, 2012. The opinion states that the underlying sexual-harassment allegations and termination were not the subjects of this action; the case concerned alleged retaliation and wrongdoing after the parties entered a separation agreement in July 2012.

That agreement required the parties not to harm or disparage each other’s reputation or interests. It also specified language for credentialing inquiries and required North Shore to provide a neutral reference for non-credentialing inquiries, limited to Blutreich’s position, employment dates, and, if requested in writing, last salary.

Blutreich claimed that twelve prospective employers did not hire her after she reached the interview stage. She alleged that defendants gave negative references, reported that her title was “Assistant Pathologist” and that her North Shore employment began in December 2011, and intentionally delayed responses to credentialing, employment-verification, or reference requests. The record included statements by Rodgers and William Wahl to a reference checker hired by Blutreich, but Blutreich admitted she had not offered either person as a reference to the twelve prospective employers.

Summary-judgment standard

The court applied the summary-judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is proper when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and a reasonable jury could not find for the opposing party. The court was required to view the evidence and reasonable inferences in Blutreich’s favor, but she could not rely only on unsupported assertions, speculation, or inadmissible evidence.

Federal retaliation claim

The court explained that a Title VII retaliation claim requires protected activity, the employer’s awareness of that activity, a materially adverse action, and a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. The parties disputed only whether Blutreich suffered a materially adverse action and whether retaliation caused it.

Negative references

The court adhered to its earlier ruling that a negative statement to an actual prospective employer can support a retaliation claim, but a statement made only to a reference checker is insufficient unless there is evidence that similar statements were made to actual prospective employers.

After discovery, the court found no evidence that defendants gave a negative reference to any of Blutreich’s actual prospective employers. Rodgers and Wahl spoke to a reference checker hired by Blutreich, not to an employer to whom she had offered them as references. The court also found no evidence that the two prospective employers specifically disputed by the parties had contacted Rodgers or Wahl. The court rejected Blutreich’s reliance on testimony about what others had told her because it was inadmissible hearsay. It therefore concluded that she had not shown a negative reference to an actual prospective employer.

Reported title and start date

The court found that North Shore accurately reported Blutreich’s start date as December 18, 2011. The employment agreement with Lenox Hill Pathology, P.C. ended on that date, and Blutreich was rehired by North Shore for employment at Lenox Hill Hospital. The court also found that “Assistant Pathologist” was an accurate title based on the North Shore records and the reappointment letter. In addition, the relevant title and start-date records existed before Blutreich’s protected activity, so they could not have been caused by that activity.

Alleged delays

The court held that Blutreich did not show a materially adverse action based on delays. A credentialing request for Weatherby Locums took slightly less than three months, which was consistent with Blutreich’s general testimony that credentialing at hospitals could take about three months. The court found that evidence that temporary-position credentialing could sometimes take as little as one month, without more, did not make the three-month period unreasonable or likely to deter a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity. The court also noted that two other temporary staffing companies successfully credentialed Blutreich and that Weatherby’s credentialing representative said North Shore was helpful.

The only documented employment-verification request was completed within five days. The court found that this response time could not reasonably be considered materially adverse. The court also found that emails from Blutreich’s former attorney about an alleged delayed reference were hearsay and did not identify the recipient as one of the prospective employers at issue.

Because Blutreich failed to show any materially adverse action, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the federal retaliation claim.

New York City Human Rights Law claim

The court analyzed the city-law retaliation claim separately under its more protective standard. Under that standard, a plaintiff must show that she opposed discrimination and that the employer engaged in conduct reasonably likely to deter a person from taking such action. The court concluded that Blutreich had not shown conduct that disadvantaged her. Although a reasonable jury might differ about the nature of Rodgers’s and Wahl’s comments to the reference checker, the comments could not have disadvantaged Blutreich because they were not made to an actual prospective employer.

The court also rejected the aiding-and-abetting claims because those claims required an underlying violation of the city law, and the court found no primary retaliation violation.

Disposition

Judge Ramos granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.