Rossbach v. Montefiore Medical Center

Background

Andrea Rossbach, a registered nurse, sued her former employer, Montefiore Medical Center, and former colleagues Norman Morales and Patricia Veintimilla. She brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and New York law.

Rossbach alleged that Morales made unwanted sexual comments and engaged in unwanted physical contact, including rubbing her shoulders, trying to make her sit on his lap, and groping her. She alleged that Veintimilla witnessed some of Morales’s conduct, told Rossbach that she was jealous of her because Morales flirted with Rossbach, and gave Rossbach a brownie that Veintimilla later said contained marijuana.

After Veintimilla reported that Rossbach appeared to be under the influence of drugs at work, Rossbach underwent a fitness-for-duty evaluation and drug testing. The first test was positive for Adderall, Xanax, marijuana, and Tramadol; a later test was negative for marijuana. Montefiore fired Rossbach for violating its drug and alcohol policy. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment under Rule 56, which permits judgment without a trial when there is no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome.

Claims on Which Summary Judgment Was Granted

The court granted summary judgment on Rossbach’s sex-discrimination claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court assumed, without deciding, that Rossbach had established the initial requirements for a discrimination claim. It held that Montefiore had provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing her: reports of behavior suggesting drug use, a physician’s evaluation, and positive tests for marijuana and non-prescribed Tramadol. The court concluded that Rossbach had not produced enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that this explanation was a pretext for discrimination.

The court also granted summary judgment on Rossbach’s retaliation claims under all three statutes. Rossbach relied on the timing of her complaints about Morales, but the court held that the fitness-for-duty referral, medical examination, and positive drug tests were intervening events that defeated an inference that the firing was caused by her complaints. The court did not decide whether all of Rossbach’s alleged complaints qualified as legally protected activity because it found that she had not shown the required connection between the complaints and her firing.

The court granted Veintimilla’s motion for summary judgment on Rossbach’s hostile-work-environment claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. It held that the evidence showed Veintimilla’s conduct was motivated by jealousy concerning Morales rather than by Rossbach’s gender. The court referred to this as a “paramour preference” claim and concluded that the claim could not support liability even under the city law’s broader standard.

The court granted summary judgment on Rossbach’s aiding-and-abetting claims concerning discrimination and retaliation because those claims required a valid underlying discrimination or retaliation claim. The court also granted Montefiore summary judgment on the claim that it aided and abetted a hostile work environment. It reasoned that an employer could not aid and abet its own alleged violation and could not be liable for aiding and abetting an employee’s hostile-work-environment violation when the claim would be derivative of the employer’s own alleged violation.

The court granted Montefiore and Veintimilla summary judgment on Rossbach’s New York City Human Rights Law claim for interference with protected rights. Rossbach identified Veintimilla’s alleged failure to intervene in Morales’s conduct and Veintimilla’s comments about her relationship with Morales, but the court found that Rossbach had not shown an affirmative coercive, intimidating, or threatening act or a connection to her exercise of protected rights. The court noted that Morales’s request for summary judgment on this claim was abandoned because the defendants made no argument supporting it.

The court granted Morales and Veintimilla summary judgment on Rossbach’s separate New York City Human Rights Law employer-liability claim. They were not Rossbach’s employer. The court also granted Montefiore summary judgment on that claim to the extent it was based on discrimination or retaliation arising from the firing, because Rossbach had not shown that those violations occurred. The opinion stated that Montefiore had not moved for summary judgment on the employer-liability portion concerning a hostile work environment.

The court granted Montefiore and Veintimilla summary judgment on Rossbach’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims. It held that Montefiore could not be held responsible for alleged sexual misconduct committed for personal motives unrelated to Montefiore’s business. As to Veintimilla, the court found that the alleged conduct involving Morales did not qualify as extreme and outrageous conduct and that Rossbach had not provided sufficient evidence connecting the alleged marijuana-brownie incident to severe emotional distress or her firing.

The court granted Morales summary judgment on Rossbach’s claim under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 213-c, which creates a civil claim for victims of certain enumerated sexual crimes. Rossbach had not addressed that claim in opposition to summary judgment, so the court treated it as abandoned. The court also held that, even if it had not been abandoned, Rossbach had not alleged facts establishing the elements of one of the listed crimes.

Finally, the court granted Morales summary judgment on Rossbach’s claim under New York City’s Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law. The court held that Rossbach had not shown that Morales’s unwanted touching created a serious risk of physical injury or that it was motivated by gender-based hostility.

Claims Remaining for Trial

The court’s order granted the defendants’ November 20, 2020 motion for partial summary judgment except to the extent Morales and Veintimilla sought summary judgment on Rossbach’s claims for aiding and abetting a hostile work environment under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The claims identified as remaining for trial were: Rossbach’s Title VII hostile-work-environment claim against Montefiore; her New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claims against Montefiore and Morales; her state and city aiding-and-abetting hostile-work-environment claims against Morales and Veintimilla; her city-law interference claim against Morales; and her assault-and-battery and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims against Morales.