Beverley v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.

Background

Mauvareen Beverley, a medical doctor and former Assistant Vice President, Physician Advisor in Finance/Managed Care for New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. (H+H), sued H+H and three H+H officials. Her first amended complaint asserted discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, a hostile-work-environment claim under § 1983, and discrimination claims under the New York City Human Rights Law based on race, national origin, gender, and age.

On March 30, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk to close the case. The opinion states that dismissal of the first amended complaint was without prejudice. Beverley later filed a notice of appeal and moved for reconsideration of the March 30 decision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and Local Civil Rule 6.3.

Reconsideration standards and Rule 59 motion

The court held that Beverley’s Rule 59 motion was untimely because she filed it 31 days after judgment, while Rule 59 requires filing within 28 days. The court stated that this deadline cannot be extended. Because Beverley had also filed a notice of appeal, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the untimely Rule 59 motion.

The court nevertheless considered the substance of her request under Local Civil Rule 6.3 through the procedure for an indicative ruling. Reconsideration under that rule is available only when the court overlooked controlling law or factual matters presented on the original motion that might reasonably have changed the result. The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy and found that Beverley largely repeated arguments previously made in opposition to dismissal.

Federal discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims

The court declined to reconsider dismissal of Beverley’s § 1983 discrimination claims. It had previously found that she did not adequately connect the alleged adverse employment actions to her race or national origin. Beverley again relied on alleged disparate treatment of six coworkers and on a remark by Anantharam about her Caribbean background and the African-American experience.

The court held that Beverley had not alleged enough facts showing that the coworkers were similarly situated in all material respects. Her own allegations indicated that some had different responsibilities, specializations, or educational backgrounds, another worked in a different unit, and the roles of two others were not described. The court also concluded that the alleged remark did not support reconsideration because Beverley had not plausibly alleged the significant disparate treatment or other facts needed to connect the remark to discrimination.

The court likewise denied reconsideration of the hostile-work-environment claim. It stated that Beverley had not adequately shown that the alleged hostile conduct was based on a protected characteristic.

Failure-to-promote and retaliation claims

The court had previously dismissed Beverley’s failure-to-promote claim because the first amended complaint did not allege that she sought a promotion or raise and was denied one. In seeking reconsideration, Beverley relied on statements in her motion papers rather than factual allegations in the complaint. The court held that motion papers could not amend the complaint and that she had not identified anything the court overlooked.

The court also denied reconsideration of the retaliation claim. Although Beverley alleged that she complained about discriminatory treatment and was later retaliated against, the complaint did not say when she made the complaints or provide enough information to evaluate the timing and causal connection. The court rejected her attempt to identify additional details for the first time in her reply because those details did not establish when she complained.

New York City Human Rights Law and municipal-liability claims

The court denied reconsideration of the New York City Human Rights Law claims. It stated that the earlier opinion had considered Beverley’s claims based on gender, age, race, ethnicity, hostile work environment, and retaliation, and had found insufficient factual allegations linking the alleged mistreatment to her protected characteristics. The court also noted that, because all federal claims had been dismissed, it would have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining city-law claims.

The court denied reconsideration of Beverley’s municipal-liability claim, commonly called a Monell claim. It held that such a claim requires an underlying constitutional violation by an individual municipal official. Because Beverley had not adequately alleged an underlying constitutional violation and had relied on conclusory allegations about H+H’s policies, the court found no basis to reconsider dismissal of that claim.

Leave to amend and disposition

Beverley had not requested leave to amend or identified additional facts in opposition to the original dismissal motion. She requested leave to amend for the first time in her reply brief on reconsideration. The court stated that further amendment was not yet clearly futile, noting that additional details about when she complained to defendants could potentially affect the retaliation claim. But because an appeal was pending and defendants had not responded to the new request, the court denied leave to amend without prejudice, subject to refiling after the appeal is resolved.

Judge Edgardo Ramos denied Beverley’s motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk to terminate that motion. The order did not change the earlier dismissal, which the opinion states was without prejudice.