Branch v. State University of New York Downstate Medical Center

Background

Romain R. Branch, who identified himself as African-American and of Caribbean national origin, became director of SUNY Downstate Medical Center’s Adult Psychiatry Residency Training Program in December 2015. He also held a temporary, non-tenure-track appointment as a Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry. The program operated largely at Kings County Hospital Center, which funded part of the residents’ salaries and later funded part of Branch’s salary.

In 2017, university officials told Branch that he needed to provide clinical supervision to residents at Kings County and that the program director position would involve substantial clinical work there. Branch refused to perform that work and asked for documentation supporting the change. In March 2018, officials removed him as program director after he continued to refuse. His appointment as Clinical Assistant Professor was not renewed, although he resigned before the appointment expired. Branch alleged that these actions were discrimination based on race and national origin. He also asserted retaliation and hostile-work-environment claims, along with claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Summary-judgment ruling

Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the court concludes that no reasonable jury could decide for the opposing party based on the evidence. Applying that standard, the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the claims under Title VII, §§ 1981 and 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

The court treated Branch’s claims concerning the failure to appoint an assistant program director and exclusion from meetings as abandoned because he did not pursue them in his opposition to summary judgment. It found that removal from the program director position and nonrenewal of the professorial appointment were adverse employment actions. However, Branch did not show circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination concerning the nonrenewal: he identified no discriminatory or disparaging remarks and did not identify his replacement or provide evidence that similarly situated professors outside his protected groups were treated differently.

The court found that Branch made the minimal showing needed to support an initial inference of discrimination concerning his removal as program director because his temporary and permanent replacements were outside his protected groups. Defendants then offered a nondiscriminatory reason: Branch refused to provide clinical supervision at Kings County. The court rejected Branch’s arguments that this reason was pretextual, including his reliance on continued salary funding, the temporary replacement’s lack of on-site work, and differences between the requested work schedule and his successor’s schedule. The court held that Branch had not shown that discrimination was the real reason for his removal.

Other claims and disposition

The court had previously dismissed Branch’s retaliation and hostile-work-environment claims. Branch later asked the court to revisit the retaliation ruling and permit a supplemental brief based on later appellate decisions. The court denied that request because it was untimely and because Branch had not explained why those decisions undermined the earlier ruling.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims after the federal claims are resolved—over the remaining New York City Human Rights Law claims. It dismissed those claims without prejudice to renewal in state court. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. Judge Torres entered the order on January 17, 2023.