Asiedu v. Broadreach Medical Resources

Background

Trina Asiedu, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Broadreach Medical Resources and J.N. Savasta Corp. She alleged race and gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to enter judgment without a trial when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could rule for the opposing party.

Asiedu worked for Broadreach beginning as a temporary employee in 2005 and became a full-time customer-service representative in 2007. She described several workplace events, including a 2012 off-site assault, coworkers speaking Spanish, a 2016 pornography report, an anonymous email containing racial and sexual insults, her 2017 report that a supervisor urinated on her, exclusion from some meetings, removal of some responsibilities, denial of a raise and private office, lack of phone-bill reimbursement, and her 2018 termination. The court noted that the parties disputed some facts, including the reason for her termination and aspects of how the companies operated. The court did not decide whether J.N. Savasta Corp. jointly employed Asiedu because it dismissed the action for other reasons.

Discrimination claims

The court applied the three-step framework used for employment-discrimination claims. Under that framework, a plaintiff must first provide evidence supporting an initial inference of discrimination. If that showing is made, the employer must give a lawful, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, after which the plaintiff must show that reason was a cover for discrimination.

The court held that Asiedu had not provided admissible evidence that any challenged action was motivated by race or gender. It concluded that the defendants investigated the 2012 assault, the pornography report, the anonymous email, and the 2017 urination incident. Although the court described those incidents as disturbing and unacceptable, it held that the alleged shortcomings in the investigations did not themselves qualify as adverse employment actions and were not supported by evidence of discriminatory motive.

The court also held that Asiedu had not shown that similarly situated employees received better treatment concerning raises, offices, phone reimbursement, meetings, or responsibilities. It found that the alleged denial of an office, lack of phone reimbursement, and temporary exclusion from meetings or responsibilities were not materially adverse changes in her employment under the applicable standard. As to termination, the parties disputed whether Asiedu was fired for lying about calling Timothy Teen a derogatory name or because Savasta believed she could no longer work effectively with Teen. The court found that either stated reason could be legitimate and nondiscriminatory, and that Asiedu had not produced evidence showing race or gender discrimination. The court therefore granted summary judgment dismissing her Title VII, Section 1981, and New York State Human Rights Law discrimination claims.

Retaliation claims

The court held that a retaliation claim requires evidence that the employee complained about conduct prohibited by the employment-discrimination laws, that the employer knew about the complaint, that the employee suffered a materially adverse action, and that the complaint and action were connected.

The court found that Asiedu’s reports about the pornography incident, Spanish-speaking coworkers, anonymous email, urination incident, and the handling of the urination incident were not shown to be complaints that she was being discriminated against because of race or gender. The court also relied on her testimony that she did not recall reporting race or gender discrimination to Broadreach or its outside human-resources provider. Even assuming she could establish an initial retaliation claim, the court held that she had not shown that retaliation was a reason for her termination. It therefore granted summary judgment dismissing the retaliation claims.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court denied the request for oral argument as moot, directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the case, and entered the order on September 13, 2022.