Trivelli v. Putnam Hospital Center
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-09898-PMH
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Trivelli v. Putnam Hospital Center, Judge Halpern scheduled a conference about PHC’s proposed dismissal motion; no dismissal ruling was issued.
Derek Trivelli and Putnam Hospital Center. The order addressed the procedure for PHC’s proposed motion to dismiss and did not resolve Trivelli’s claims.
What happened
Trivelli v. Putnam Hospital Center concerns Derek Trivelli’s claims that Putnam Hospital Center violated New York’s Human Rights Law by discriminating against him because of an alleged disability, denying accommodation, and retaliating against him. The opinion text is a letter from the hospital’s counsel requesting permission to file a dismissal motion.
Putnam Hospital Center argued that Trivelli’s alleged radiation exposure was speculative, that his requested medical leaves were granted, that requesting leave was not protected retaliation activity, and that the claims were filed too late. These were the hospital’s proposed arguments, not rulings by the court.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered a telephonic pre-motion conference for October 28, 2021, and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion sequence at Doc. 20. The order did not decide the proposed dismissal motion or the claims’ merits.
The detailed version
- Trivelli v. Putnam Hospital Center · No. 7:19-cv-09898-PMH
- Philip Halpern
- June 23, 2021
What the document is
The document consists of Judge Philip M. Halpern’s order and a letter from counsel for Putnam Hospital Center (referred to as “PHC”). PHC’s counsel requested a pre-motion conference—a conference held before a party files a motion—to discuss seeking permission to file a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
Claims and proposed arguments
According to PHC’s counsel, PHC hired Derek Trivelli as a Radiology Supervisor in November 2014. Counsel stated that Trivelli alleged he suffered possible or potential radiation exposure after performing fluoroscopic checks of lead protective equipment. He allegedly requested two medical leaves, which PHC granted, and PHC terminated him on November 20, 2017, allegedly because of multiple violations of PHC’s Code of Conduct.
The letter stated that Trivelli’s complaint asserted three claims under the New York State Human Rights Law: disability discrimination, failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and retaliation. PHC’s counsel argued that the alleged radiation exposure was too speculative to qualify as a disability, that Trivelli’s symptoms were not alleged to prevent him from performing his job or to be demonstrable through medically accepted testing, and that PHC was not required to accommodate a condition that was not a recognized disability. Counsel also argued that PHC granted both requested leaves, that requesting medical leave was not protected activity for purposes of the retaliation claim, and that the claims were untimely because the complaint was filed on April 15, 2021, more than three years after the November 20, 2017 termination.
These arguments were presented by PHC in support of a proposed future motion. The opinion text does not show that the court adopted or rejected them.
Court’s action
The court ordered the parties to hold a telephonic pre-motion conference on October 28, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate the motion sequence pending at Doc. 20. The order did not grant or deny PHC’s proposed motion to dismiss, dismiss any claim, or decide the merits of Trivelli’s claims.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.