Thompson v. Corizon Health, Inc.

Background

Corizon Health, Inc. moved for reconsideration of the court’s January 12, 2021, opinion and order denying Corizon’s motion for summary judgment on the hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims of Serena Thompson, Linda Unneland, Sanja Medich, and Naomi Dechoudens under the New York City Human Rights Law.

The earlier summary-judgment ruling held that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that a continuing violation excused the three-year limitations period for Dechoudens’s claims. It also held that a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Corizon failed to take action to remedy pervasive and severe sexual harassment faced by the plaintiffs.

Motion for Reconsideration

Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, reconsideration requires a party to identify matters or controlling decisions the court overlooked. The court explained that reconsideration is generally appropriate only when there is an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. It is not a vehicle for relitigating issues already decided or presenting new theories.

Corizon argued that the continuing-violation doctrine could not apply to Dechoudens’s claim because she had not identified specific discriminatory acts after August 8, 2015, and had not presented enough evidence to show that discriminatory conduct continued into the limitations period. The court held that reconsideration was improper because these arguments had already been made and rejected at summary judgment. The court also stated that, even if it reconsidered the issue, evidence of multiple instances of unwanted sexual conduct directed at Dechoudens could allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the conduct continued into the limitations period.

Corizon also argued that the plaintiffs had not adequately identified a continuing violation in their Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges or complaint. The court noted that Corizon first raised this argument in its summary-judgment reply brief, making the argument generally waived because it was raised too late. The court further stated that reconsideration was unwarranted because Corizon repeated its prior argument and relied on the same authority. Even if considered, the argument was unpersuasive because an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge was not required before bringing a New York City Human Rights Law claim, and the plaintiffs had presented enough evidence for a factfinder to conclude that Corizon failed to remedy pervasive sexual discrimination and that this failure amounted to a policy of tolerating that discrimination.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Corizon’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to close docket entry No. 137.