Trivelli v. Putnam Hospital Center

Background

Derek Trivelli sued Putnam Hospital Center (PHC), Health Quest Systems, Inc. (HQSI), and Nuvance Health (NH). He alleged that the defendants wrongfully terminated him in retaliation for reporting safety concerns under the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA) and New York Labor Law § 741.

Trivelli worked as a Radiology Supervisor at PHC. He alleged that he was directed to perform fluoroscopies on more than 100 radiation-protection lead units even though he had not been trained to use a fluoroscopy machine or given appropriate safety training and equipment. He claimed that the testing revealed holes, cracks, or tears in some protective units. He reported concerns about the procedure, possible radiation exposure, and allegedly inaccurate inspection records to PHC personnel. He was later terminated. The written explanation stated that his complaints were unsubstantiated, that he had made false statements about his training and equipment, and that he had violated Health Quest conduct rules.

Trivelli first filed a retaliation complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (DOL-OSHA), naming HQSI as his employer. After more than one year passed without a final agency decision, he filed this federal action. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s power to hear a case, and 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

ERA claim and administrative exhaustion

The ERA requires an employee generally to begin with a DOL-OSHA complaint. If the Department of Labor has not issued a final decision within one year, and the delay was not caused by the employee’s bad faith, the employee may bring the retaliation claim in federal court.

The court held that Trivelli satisfied this requirement as to PHC. Although his DOL-OSHA complaint named HQSI, the court found that PHC had notice of the complaint and an opportunity to participate in the agency investigation for more than one year. Among other things, HQSI submitted a response on behalf of its affiliate PHC, and PHC submitted its own response to Trivelli’s rebuttal. The court therefore held that it had jurisdiction over the ERA claim against PHC.

The court reached the opposite conclusion as to NH. Trivelli alleged that NH became PHC’s parent corporation around April 3, 2019, after he filed his DOL-OSHA complaint. The court found no allegations or documents showing that NH had notice of, or an opportunity to participate in, the agency investigation for at least one year. It held that Trivelli had not completed the required agency process as to NH, found that it lacked jurisdiction over the ERA claim against NH, and dismissed that claim.

ERA claim and sufficiency of the allegations

The court held that Trivelli’s allegations were sufficient to state an ERA retaliation claim against PHC. The court concluded that the allegations did not establish that HQSI was a covered employer under the ERA. Trivelli alleged that PHC held a New York State license for radioactive materials, but alleged only that HQSI was PHC’s parent company. The court dismissed the ERA claim against HQSI.

The court also held that Trivelli’s repeated internal complaints about possible radiation exposure, inadequate training, protective equipment, and inspection practices qualified as protected activity under the ERA’s provision covering other actions taken to advance nuclear-safety purposes. The ERA claim against PHC therefore remained pending.

New York Labor Law § 741 claim

New York Labor Law § 741 protects certain health-care employees who report or object to practices they reasonably and in good faith believe involve improper patient care or workplace safety. The court held that Trivelli plausibly qualified as a covered employee because he alleged that he administered nuclear isotopes to patients and performed other health-care services under the defendants’ direction and control.

The court found, however, that Trivelli had not alleged facts establishing that HQSI or NH were covered employers under § 741. It therefore dismissed the § 741 claims against HQSI and NH. The court did not dismiss the § 741 claim against PHC.

Request to amend and disposition

Trivelli asked for permission to amend if the court found any allegations deficient. The court denied that request without prejudice as to HQSI, meaning Trivelli could make a proper motion under the court’s procedures seeking permission to amend against HQSI. The court found that amendment as to NH would be futile because NH allegedly did not exist until after the events at issue and could not have been Trivelli’s employer at that time. The court therefore allowed a possible amendment request against HQSI only.

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part. The court dismissed Trivelli’s first and second claims for relief against HQSI and NH. His first and second claims against PHC were allowed to proceed to discovery. The clerk was directed to remove Nuvance Health from the docket and terminate the pending motion.