Lerario v. NewYork-Presbyterian/Queens

Background

Dr. Mackenzie Lerario, a vascular neurologist and transgender woman, sued NewYork-Presbyterian/Queens, Cornell University, and Dr. Matthew Fink. The operative complaint asserted claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law for sex discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, along with disability-based hostile-work-environment claims under the New York laws. The allegations centered on events during Lerario’s gender transition in 2019 and early 2020.

Lerario had been on long-term disability leave since 2020 and remained an inactive Cornell employee. Lerario had not practiced clinical medicine since 2019. After long-term disability coverage ended, Lerario asked Cornell to return them to active employment and later submitted a psychiatrist’s letter stating that they were mentally fit to return. Lerario then sought a preliminary injunction requiring Cornell to restore active status and provide retraining and supervision.

Legal Standard

The court treated the requested injunction as mandatory because it would change the existing situation rather than preserve it. It also concluded that the injunction would provide substantially all of the reinstatement relief sought in the lawsuit and could not be undone if the defendants later prevailed. The heightened preliminary-injunction standard therefore applied: Lerario had to make a clear or substantial showing of likely success on the merits, make a strong showing of irreparable harm, and show that the injunction served the public interest. The court stated that Lerario would not prevail even under the ordinary standard.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Lerario had not shown irreparable harm. Although possible medical-skill loss and career effects were serious concerns, Lerario had already been away from clinical practice for almost four years, and the court found no showing that any additional harm before trial would be immediate and impossible to remedy later. The court also noted that reinstatement, front pay, or other equitable relief could remain available after trial. Lerario’s delay in seeking reinstatement and preliminary relief further weakened the claim of urgency.

The court also held that Lerario had not shown a likelihood of success on the existing claims. Earlier rulings allowing claims to proceed had found only that the allegations were legally plausible; they did not determine that Lerario was likely to prove the claims at trial. The current motion focused substantially on an alleged 2023 termination or change in status, while the complaint focused on alleged conduct in 2019 and 2020. The court therefore found that the motion did not establish the necessary connection between the requested injunction and the claims pleaded in the complaint.

The balance of hardships did not favor Lerario because the possible additional loss of medical skills was uncertain, while the requested injunction would require Cornell to devote substantial faculty and clinical resources to retraining Lerario. The court also found that Lerario had not shown that the injunction would serve the public interest, particularly because Cornell’s retraining obligation would affect faculty, patients, and other physicians.

Disposition

The court denied Lerario’s motion for a preliminary injunction requiring Cornell to reinstate and retrain Lerario while the litigation continued. The court directed the Clerk to close the docket entries associated with the temporary-restraining-order and preliminary-injunction motions. The order did not resolve the underlying discrimination, retaliation, or hostile-work-environment claims.