Abalola v. St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center

Background

Diana Abalola, a staff nurse at Mt. Sinai-Morningside Hospital, sued Mount Sinai Health System, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, Stephanie Guareno, and Ann McNicholas. She alleged race and age discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation. Her claims were brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which protects the right to make and enforce contracts without race discrimination, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Abalola alleged that her supervisor, Stephanie Guareno, made comments about her race, hair, age, attitude, body language, and movement. She also alleged that defendants denied her transfer requests, assigned her less challenging patients, restricted some work opportunities, criticized her performance, and retaliated after she filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a legally significant issue.

Section 1981 Discrimination Claims

The court granted summary judgment on Abalola’s § 1981 discrimination claims. To proceed with those claims, Abalola had to show, among other things, that she suffered a materially adverse employment action under circumstances suggesting intentional race discrimination.

The court held that the written warnings, performance investigations, non-disciplinary performance-improvement plan, positive overall performance appraisal, alleged harassment, denial of leave requests, failure to receive an employee-of-the-month award, and restrictions on precepting new staff did not qualify as materially adverse employment actions. The court also found no evidence that assigning her less challenging patients materially harmed her employment or career opportunities.

Abalola relied primarily on the denial of more than fifty transfer requests. The court held that she had not provided objective evidence showing that the mostly lateral positions would have significantly improved her employment conditions. Although the denials of three non-lateral positions did qualify as adverse employment actions, the court found insufficient evidence connecting those decisions to race discrimination. Thirty-three hiring managers participated in the decisions, and the record did not show that Guareno was involved in the decisions or that the hiring managers acted with discriminatory intent. The court therefore concluded that Abalola had not established the required initial showing of discrimination.

Section 1981 Hostile Work Environment Claim

The court dismissed Abalola’s § 1981 hostile work environment claim. Such a claim requires evidence that discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insults were so severe or pervasive that they changed the conditions of employment. The court considered both the explicitly race-related comments and the other alleged conduct as part of the overall course of conduct.

The court found that Abalola had identified approximately six explicitly racist comments over five years, including comments about her hair and being perceived as an “angry Black woman.” Although the comments were offensive and mocking, the court held that they were not sufficiently continuous, concerted, physically threatening, or severe to meet the legal standard. The court also found that Abalola had not shown that the conduct unreasonably interfered with her work performance.

Section 1981 Retaliation Claims

The court granted defendants summary judgment on Abalola’s § 1981 retaliation claims. Abalola claimed that Guareno retaliated against her for filing the state human-rights complaint by continuing to call her “sassy” and “slow,” stating in a 2018 performance appraisal that she was not a team player, and declining to assign her post-operation open-heart-surgery patients.

The court held that the comments were petty slights or minor annoyances, and that the otherwise positive performance appraisal was not materially adverse. Regarding the patient assignments, Abalola provided no evidence, apart from her own view, that the assignments she received were objectively less prestigious or desirable. The court also noted that defendants gave a non-retaliatory explanation: nurses needed additional training for the post-operation patients, but only a few nurses received the training because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and Abalola was not among them. Abalola did not provide enough evidence for a reasonable factfinder to infer a retaliatory motive.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

After resolving all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Abalola’s remaining claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims, but the court may decline to do so after dismissing all claims providing federal jurisdiction.

Judge Woods granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Abalola’s § 1981 claims. The remaining state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment for defendants, terminate the motion, and close the case.