Akinde v. New York City Health and Hospital Corporation

Background

Oludotun Akinde worked as a coordinating manager at Harlem Hospital, which is part of the hospital network operated by New York City Health and Hospital Corporation (HHC). On September 12, 2016, HHC placed him on “Regulation 1” involuntary leave after workplace officials reported that he believed coworkers were trying to poison or harm him, were stalking him, and had broken into his home. He also wore gloves, covered his chair with plastic, and said that people in photographs were disguised coworkers even though hospital officials did not recognize them.

HHC’s Regulation 1 policy allowed an employee to be required to undergo an evaluation by an independent physician. When officials reasonably believed the employee’s continued presence could endanger people or property or seriously interfere with operations, the employee could be placed on leave while the evaluation and later review took place.

A psychiatrist affiliated with HHC’s Personnel Review Board evaluated Akinde and concluded that he was not then capable of performing his coordinating-manager duties. Akinde requested a hearing and was represented by counsel. Witnesses testified under oath and were subject to cross-examination. The hearing officer upheld the leave, a human-resources director agreed with that decision, and an appeal board found the decision properly supported. When Akinde later sought to return to work, another psychiatrist concluded that he could return only if he did not supervise employees or frequently work with teammates. HHC’s equal-employment-opportunity office determined that those restrictions prevented him from performing the essential duties of his former position, with or without a reasonable accommodation.

Akinde’s claims alleged discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as violations of procedural fairness under the Fourteenth Amendment. Earlier in the case, the court dismissed his claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 with prejudice. HHC then moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a legally important issue.

Due-Process Claims

The court granted summary judgment on Akinde’s due-process claims. It held that HHC reasonably believed urgent circumstances required immediate action because of Akinde’s undisputed statements and conduct and the concerns expressed by hospital employees about safety. In an emergency, immediate action can satisfy constitutional requirements if the employer provides a meaningful opportunity for review afterward.

The court found that Akinde received adequate later procedures. He received notice of the leave, a medical evaluation, a hearing before the Personnel Review Board while represented by counsel, testimony from witnesses subject to cross-examination, and opportunities to appeal and seek reinstatement. The court also found that Akinde offered no evidence supporting his assertion that the hearing process involved collusion.

Title VII and Americans with Disabilities Act Claims

The court also granted summary judgment on the discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. It explained that the claims generally had to be presented to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the challenged act. Akinde filed his federal charge on May 7, 2018, so acts occurring before July 11, 2017—including his placement on leave in September 2016—were time barred.

The court rejected any argument that the appeal of the leave decision paused the filing deadline. It treated that appeal as later review of an earlier employment decision, rather than a new discriminatory act. The court therefore held that claims based on the Personnel Review Board’s September 25, 2017 appeal decision were also time barred.

The court separately considered HHC’s October 24, 2017 denial of Akinde’s application to return to duty. It found no evidence that race influenced that decision and no evidence supporting retaliation. As to disability discrimination, the court concluded that Akinde had not shown that a reasonable accommodation would have allowed him to perform the essential functions of his coordinating-manager position, which included supervising staff and coordinating work with others. The court also found no causal connection supporting his disability-retaliation claim, noting that more than a year passed between his earlier lawsuit against HHC and the denial of his application to return to work.

Disposition

The court granted HHC’s motion for summary judgment. The conclusion states that the defendants’ motions for summary judgment were granted, judgment was entered in the defendants’ favor, all pending motions were terminated, and the case was closed. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal.