Shkoza v. NYC Health and Hospital Corporation

Background

Ardiana Shkoza, proceeding without a lawyer, sued NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation after it terminated her temporary employment as a hospital care investigator at Jacobi Medical Center. Her original complaint alleged retaliation and discrimination based on race, national origin, age, sex, and gender under federal, New York State, and New York City laws.

Shkoza began working on March 4, 2019, and was terminated on April 23, 2019. Supervisors testified that she had difficulty learning billing concepts, needed repeated instruction, and had conflicts with coworkers. Shkoza complained about workplace issues, including changes in supervisors and assignments, inadequate training, bullying, harassment, and a hostile work environment. She also alleged that supervisor Roberto Lujan touched her on two occasions, including touching or massaging her shoulders after she had been crying during a meeting. Lujan acknowledged touching her shoulder but said he was consoling her and stopped when she directed him to do so.

In 2021, the court dismissed most of Shkoza’s claims for failure to state a claim. The claims left for decision were retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, plus a New York City gender-discrimination claim. After discovery, NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence presents a genuine dispute that a jury must decide.

Retaliation claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used for employment-retaliation claims. Shkoza first had to show that she engaged in protected activity, meaning activity opposing conduct that she reasonably and in good faith believed was unlawful discrimination; that the employer knew about it; that she suffered a materially adverse action; and that the protected activity caused the action.

The court held that Shkoza failed to establish the first element. It treated her claim as resting on her telling Lujan not to touch her after he touched her shoulders. The court explained that opposing workplace sexual harassment can be protected activity, even if the underlying harassment claim ultimately lacks merit. But the belief that the conduct was sexual harassment must be reasonable in context. The court concluded that Lujan’s touching of Shkoza’s shoulder or shoulders and offering her a tissue after she had been crying did not meet that standard. It further noted that the record did not adequately support some additional allegations, including an alleged comment about female employees and Lujan’s wife.

The court also gave an alternative reason for ruling against Shkoza. NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation identified unsatisfactory performance and personality conflicts with coworkers as legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the termination. The court found that Shkoza did not present evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude those reasons were a pretext, or false explanations concealing retaliation. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the Title VII and New York State retaliation claims.

Retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law

The court separately evaluated the New York City retaliation claim under that law’s more forgiving standard. Shkoza still had to show protected activity, employer knowledge, conduct reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity, and a causal connection. The court again concluded that she had not established protected activity because her belief that the shoulder touching was sexual harassment was not reasonable in context.

The court also held that, even if Shkoza had established a prima facie case—a basic initial showing required by the law—she did not meaningfully challenge the employer’s stated reasons for ending her employment. The record showed that discrimination and retaliation played no role in the employer’s decision as a matter of law. The court granted summary judgment on the New York City retaliation claim.

New York City gender-discrimination claim

For the remaining gender-discrimination claim, the court held that Shkoza had to show she was treated less well at least partly because of her gender. It concluded that Lujan’s touching, considered in context, was a petty slight or trivial inconvenience rather than actionable gender-based treatment under the New York City Human Rights Law. The court again found that Shkoza had not sufficiently challenged the employer’s legitimate reasons for the termination or produced evidence allowing a reasonable juror to infer that gender discrimination played a role.

Disposition

The court granted NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation’s motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims: retaliation under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and gender discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and close the case.