Grimm v. Garnet Health

Background

James Grimm sued Garnet Health Medical Center, Lauren Carberry, and Gregg Hough. His complaint asserted six claims: age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act against Garnet Health Medical Center; age discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law against all Defendants; disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act against Garnet Health Medical Center; disability discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law against all Defendants; retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Americans with Disabilities Act against Garnet Health Medical Center; and retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law against all Defendants.

Grimm had worked as a security officer and later as a Charge Officer. His duties included responding to emergency codes, handling radio and telephone messages, searching patients’ belongings for weapons, and responding to physically dangerous situations. The opinion describes several incidents involving alleged failures to respond to emergency codes, failure to follow security duties, and extended periods sitting at a volunteer desk while assigned to move throughout the hospital. He received a one-month unpaid suspension on March 30, 2021 and was terminated on April 28, 2021.

Grimm also filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging age and disability discrimination and retaliation. The first charge concerned a January 31, 2020 meeting, and the second alleged retaliation connected to that charge, his internal complaints, opposition to discrimination, and union activity.

Federal discrimination claims

The court granted summary judgment on the age-discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court held that Grimm was qualified enough to satisfy the minimal qualification requirement for an age-discrimination claim, given his nearly 21 years of work as a security officer. But it found that he had not shown circumstances supporting an inference that age was the decisive cause of his suspension or termination. The court treated inquiries about retirement as remarks not connected to the employment decisions and noted that Grimm had been hired back at age 57 and that Hough had hired multiple security officers over age 60. The court also held that Defendants had identified legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the employment actions—Grimm’s alleged repeated failures to respond adequately to emergency codes and his neglect of assigned duties—and that Grimm had not shown those reasons were a pretext, meaning a cover for unlawful discrimination.

The court also granted summary judgment on the Americans with Disabilities Act disability-discrimination claim. Grimm relied on the fact that Defendants knew he wore hearing aids and had asked about his response to radio calls. The court held that this knowledge alone did not show that Defendants regarded him as disabled or that his suspension and termination were caused by a perceived disability. The record contained no further evidence connecting his hearing aids to those employment decisions. The court also stated that, even if Grimm had established an initial disability-discrimination case, he had not shown that Defendants’ stated reasons were pretextual. The court deemed any actual-disability theory abandoned because Grimm did not address it in his opposition papers.

Federal retaliation claim

The court granted summary judgment on Grimm’s retaliation claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. Grimm relied mainly on the timing of his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges and what he described as excessive scrutiny.

The court held that timing did not establish a causal connection because the discipline formed part of a progressive process that began with a written warning in February 2019, before Grimm’s protected activity. The court also found no evidence that Defendants treated Grimm differently from another security officer who was found sitting at the volunteer desk and was also disciplined. Finally, the court held that Grimm had not shown that Defendants’ stated performance-related reasons were pretextual.

New York claims and disposition

Grimm’s remaining claims arose under the New York State Human Rights Law. The court explained that the state legislature had amended that law to require a more liberal standard for claims arising after October 11, 2019. The parties had instead briefed the federal and state claims under what the court viewed as an outdated, coextensive standard and had not adequately addressed the current state-law standard.

Because the federal claims had been resolved and the state claims required a separate and insufficiently briefed analysis, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York State Human Rights Law claims. It dismissed the second, fourth, and sixth claims without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion and close the case.