Shipkevich v. New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center

Background

Yemelyan Shipkevich sued his employer, identified in the opinion as The New York and Presbyterian Hospital (the “Hospital”), and the union identified in the opinion as 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (“1199”). He alleged that the Hospital discriminated and retaliated against him by repeatedly denying promotions, failing to pay a bonus, denying vacation and training, increasing his workload, and issuing written warnings after he complained about discrimination. He alleged that 1199 aided and abetted the Hospital’s conduct by failing to address his complaints and by failing to properly follow the grievance procedure.

After earlier dismissals of some claims, both defendants moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended granting the motions in part and denying the Hospital’s motion in part. Each party objected to the recommendation. The district court reviewed the objections under the applicable standards and adopted the recommendation in its entirety.

Rulings on Shipkevich’s Claims

- Age discrimination: The court granted summary judgment on all age-based claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court held that the record did not support a finding that the Hospital took adverse employment actions because of Shipkevich’s age. Although Shipkevich identified remarks by colleagues about his age, he did not connect those remarks to employment decisions. - Race and national-origin discrimination based on workload: The court denied summary judgment on Shipkevich’s federal and state claims based on an increased workload. Evidence that a former union representative testified that Shipkevich’s supervisor preferred employees of Caribbean descent to Russian employees, and that Shipkevich received a higher workload for that reason, created a factual dispute. Conflicting evidence about typical workloads for operating-room staff did not permit the court to resolve the issue at summary judgment. - Failure to promote: The court granted summary judgment on the federal and state race and national-origin claims based on the Hospital’s failure to promote Shipkevich. The court agreed that the record did not show his qualifications were “so superior” to those of the person hired, and it found no additional evidence connecting the failure to promote or the failure to interview him to discrimination. - Bonus, vacation, and training: The court granted summary judgment on the federal and state race and national-origin claims based on the denial of a $1,000 bonus, delay in approving vacation leave, and denial of permission to attend training. It held that these incidents did not qualify as materially adverse employment actions for the claims at issue. - Retaliation under federal and state law: The court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims under Title VII, Section 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Evidence showed that Shipkevich’s workload increased within one month of an initial discrimination complaint, he received a written reprimand within four months, and he was denied an interview within three months of renewing his discrimination allegation. The court held that this was enough to make the required initial showing of retaliation and noted that the Hospital had not yet offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation for the alleged retaliation. - New York City Human Rights Law: The court denied summary judgment on Shipkevich’s claims of race and national-origin discrimination and retaliation under New York City law. Under that law, the Hospital was entitled to summary judgment only if the record established as a matter of law that discrimination played no role in its actions, and the court found that the Hospital had not made that showing. - Claims against 1199: The court granted 1199’s motion for summary judgment in full and adopted the recommendation that Shipkevich’s claims against 1199 be dismissed. The court found no basis to conclude that 1199 actually participated in the Hospital’s alleged discrimination or retaliation. Because it granted 1199’s motion in full, it did not consider 1199’s separate objection based on labor-law preemption.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered that the Hospital’s motion for summary judgment was “granted in part and denied in part” and that 1199’s motion for summary judgment was “granted in full.” The workload-based federal and state race and national-origin claims, the federal and state retaliation claims, and the New York City discrimination and retaliation claims were identified as proceeding to trial. The court also scheduled a telephonic status conference for October 9, 2020.