Lawrence v. Mehlman (Full Text)

0 9 -4 4 0 9 – c v
L aw r e n c e v . M e h lm a n

UN ITED STATES COURT O F APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND C IRCU IT

SUMM ARY ORDER

R U L IN G S BY SUMM A R Y OR D E R DO NO T HA V E PR E C E D E N T IA L E F FE C T . C IT A T IO N TO A
SUM M A R Y O R D E R F IL E D O N O R A FT E R JA N U A R Y 1 , 20 0 7 , IS PE RM IT T E D A N D IS GO V E R N E D B Y
F ED E R A L R U L E O F A PP EL L A T E PRO C E D U R E 32 .1 A N D TH IS CO U R T ’S LO C A L R U L E 32 .1 .1 . W H E N
C IT ING A SUM M A R Y O R D E R IN A DO C UM E N T F IL E D W ITH TH IS CO U R T , A PA R T Y M U ST C IT E
E ITH ER TH E FE D ER A L A P PE N D IX O R A N E L E C TR O N IC D A T A BA SE (W ITH TH E NO TA T IO N
“SUM M A R Y O R D E R ” ) . A PA R T Y C IT IN G A SUM M A R Y O R D ER M U ST SE R V E A C O PY O F IT O N A N Y
P A R T Y NO T R E P R E SE N T E D B Y CO U N S E L .

A t a s tated term o f the U n ited S tate s C ou rt o f A ppea ls fo r the Second C ircu it, he ld
a t the D an ie l Pa trick M oyn ihan U n ited S ta te s C ou rthou se , 500 Pea rl S tree t, in the C ity o f
N ew Y o rk , on the 10 day o f A ugu s t, tw o thou sand ten .
th

PRESENT : REENA RAGG I ,
GERARD E . LYNCH ,
DENNY CH IN ,
C ircu it Judge s.

– – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – –
PETER LAW RENCE ,

P la in tiff-Appe llan t,

v .

N o . 09 -4409 -cv

IRA M EHLMAN , as a ide r and abe tte r , NYACK
EM ERGENCY PHY S IC IAN S , P .C .,
D e fendan ts-Appe llee s,

EM TEL NYACK PR INC IPALS GROU P ,
D e fendan t.
– – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – — – – – – –

FOR A PPELLANT :

FOR A PPELLEES :

M ichae l H . Su s sm an , Su s sm an & W a tk in s , G o shen , N ew
Y o rk .

Edw a rd F . Beane , D onna E . F ro sco , K eane & B eane ,
P .C ., W h ite P la in s , N ew Y o rk .

A ppea l from the U n i ted S ta tes D is tr ic t C ou r t for the Sou thern D is tr ic t of N ew Y o rk

(R obe rt W . Sw ee t, Judge) .

U PON DUE CON S IDERAT ION , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED , AD JUDGED , AND

DECREED tha t the judgm en t en te red on O c tobe r 14 , 2009 , is A FF IRMED .

P la in tiff Pe te r L aw rence , an A frican -Am e rican doc to r w ho w o rked in the eme rgency

depa rtm en t a t N yack H o sp ita l, sued de fendan ts Ira M eh lm an , the departm en t d irec to r , and

N y a ck Em e rg en cy Phy sic ian s , P .C . (“NEP ” ), th e co rpo ra tion th a t ope ra ted th e em e rg en cy

depa rtm en t, fo r race d isc rim ina tion unde r 42 U .S .C . § 1981 , T itle V II o f the C iv il R igh ts A c t

o f 1964 , 42 U .S .C . § 2000e e t seq ., and N ew Y o rk H um an R igh ts Law . L aw rence now

appea ls from an aw a rd o f summ a ry judgm en t fo r de fendan ts . See Law rence v . N yack

Em e rgency Phy sic ian s , P .C ., 659 F . Supp . 2d 584 (S .D .N .Y . 2009 ). W e rev iew the d is tric t

cou r t’s dec is ion de novo , and w e w ill affirm on ly if the reco rd , v iew ed in the ligh t m o s t

favo rab le to the nonm ov ing party , revea ls no genu ine issue o f ma te ria l fac t. See Fed . R . C iv .

P . 56 (c); A nde rson v . L ibe rty Lobby , Inc ., 477 U .S . 242 , 247 -48 (1986 ); R edd v . W righ t, 597

F .3d 532 , 535 -36 (2d C ir. 2010 ) . W e assum e the par t ies’ fam i liar ity w i th the fac ts and reco rd

o f p rio r p roceed ing s , w h ich w e re fe rence on ly as necessa ry to exp la in ou r dec is ion to a ffirm .

W e ana lyze Law rence’s d isc rim ina tion c la im s unde r the fam ilia r bu rden -sh ifting

framew o rk se t fo rth in M cD onne ll D oug la s C o rp . v . G reen , 411 U .S . 792 , 802 -03 (1973 )

(T itle V II) . See Sp iege l v . S chu lm ann , 604 F .3d 72 , 80 (2d C ir . 2010 ) (N ew Y o rk H um an

R igh ts L aw ) ; Lopez v . S .B . Thom as , Inc ., 831 F .2d 1184 , 1187 -88 (2d C ir. 1987 ) (§ 1981 ) .

2

O n appea l, L aw rence subm its tha t the d is tric t cou rt e rred in conc lud ing tha t he cou ld no t

e stab lish a p rim a fac ie case o f d isc rim ina tion becau se M eh lm an ’s June 9 , 2005 rep rim and

– w h ich w as d isavow ed soon the rea f te r – d id no t , as a m a tte r o f law , con s titu te adve rse

emp loym en t ac tion . See , e .g ., M a th irampuzha v . Po tte r, 548 F .3d 70 , 78 (2d C ir . 2008 )
1

(ho ld ing tha t p la in tiff mu s t show “he su ffe red an adve rse emp loym en t ac tion” ); W illiam s v .

R .H . D onne lley , C o rp ., 368 F .3d 123 , 128 (2d C ir . 2004 ) (a ffirm ing summ a ry judgm en t fo r

emp loye r w he re , in te r a lia , p la in tiff fa iled to e stab lish tha t re fu sa l o f tran sfe r “con stitu ted an

adve rse em p loym en t ac tion , as requ ired unde r the th ird p rong o f the T itle V II p rim a fac ie

ca se” ) .

R ep rim and s o r n ega tive eva lua tion lette rs m ay , in som e c ircum stances, con stitu te

adverse em p loym en t ac t ion , see Z e ln ik v . Fash ion Ins t . o f T ech ., 464 F .3d 217 , 226 (2d C ir.

2006 ) ; Sanders v . N .Y . C i ty H um an R es . A dm in . , 361 F .3d 749 , 755 -56 (2d C ir. 2004 ) ;

T reg lia v . Tow n o f M an lius, 313 F .3d 713 , 720 (2d C ir. 2002 ); bu t cf . W eek s v . N .Y . S tate

(D iv . o f Pa ro le ), 273 F .3d 76 , 86 (2d C ir . 2001 ) , ab roga ted on o the r g round s by N a tiona l

R .R . Pa ssenge r C o rp . v . M o rgan , 536 U .S . 101 (2002 ) , and w he the r they do is typ ica lly a

que stion o f fac t fo r the ju ry , see Sanders v . N .Y . C ity H um an R e s . A dm in ., 361 F .3d a t 756 .

H e re , how eve r, the reco rd show s tha t, a fte r fu rthe r investiga ting the M ay 26 , 2005 inc iden t,

O n June 9 , 2005 , M eh lm an sen t L aw rence a m em o randum adv ising h im tha t he d id
1
no t ac t app rop ria te ly in fa iling to see a pa tien t w ho had su ffe red a m isca rriage on M ay 26 ,
2005 , and on Ju ly 6 , 2005 , the NEP p residen t sen t L aw rence a le tte r dem and ing h is
acknow ledgm en t tha t he w ou ld fo l low M eh lman ’s in s truc t ion s regard ing the ho sp i ta l’s
s tanda rd o f ca re .

3

ho sp ita l o ffic ia ls conc luded tha t L aw rence d id , in fac t, fo llow the app rop ria te standa rd o f

ca re . A cco rd ing ly , on Ju ly 19 , 2005 , John Pe llicone , the ch ie f m ed ica l o ffice r a t N yack

H o sp ital, sen t L aw rence a m em o randum sta ting tha t “th e re is now enough ev idence to

ind ica te tha t a ll s tanda rd s o f ca re w e re me t . A ny p rev iou s co rre spondence c ritiqu ing you r

ac tion s w [as] p rem a tu re and lack [ed ] com p le te in fo rm a tion .” Pe ll icon e A ff . ¶ 8 . Thu s ,

becau se he w a s clea red o f any w rongdo ing , L aw rence’s c la im reduces to a comp la in t abou t

the lim ited e ffec t o f a ha stily issued and sw iftly d isavow ed rep rim and .

L aw rence c ite s no ca se ho ld ing tha t a rep rim and , w ithd raw n w ith in s ix w eek s, rise s

to the lev e l o f “a m a ter ially adve rse change in the term s and cond ition s o f em p loym en t.”

M a th iram puzh a v . Po t ter , 548 F .3d a t 78 ( in terna l quo ta tion m ark s and em phas is om i tted) ;

see a lso B eye r v . C oun ty o f N a ssau , 524 F .3d 160 , 164 (2d C ir . 2008 ) (“ [W ]e requ ire a

p la in tiff to p ro ffe r ob jec tive ind ic ia o f m a te ria l d isadvan tage ; ‘sub jec tive , pe rsona l

d isappo in tm en t’ is no t enough .” (b racke ts om itted ) (quo ting W illiam s v . R .H . D onne l ley ,

C o rp ., 368 F .3d a t 128 )) ; c f. Sande rs v . N .Y . C ity H um an R e s . A dm in ., 361 F .3d a t 756

(a ffirm ing ju ry ve rd ic t fo r emp loye r w he re c ritica l eva lua tion w a s removed from file and

p rom o tion to supe rv iso r becam e pe rm anen t) . W h ile Law rence a sse rts repu ta tiona l in ju ry ,

tha t a rgum en t fa ils fo r the rea son s ta ted by the d is tric t cou rt: the re is no ev idence o f

defendan ts’ pub l ic iz ing the rep r im and ; thu s , any such in jury resu l ted so le ly from L aw rence ’s

pub lica tion o f the rep rim and to ga in suppo rt among h is ho sp ita l co lleagues . Fu r the r, to the

ex ten t L aw rence com p la in s ab ou t h is sub jec t ive , pe rson a l d isappo in tm en t reg ard ing sh ift

4

a ss ignm en ts bo th be fo re and afte r the cha llenged rep r im and , h is c la im tha t he w a s g iven

few e r sh ifts o r le ss de sirab le sh ifts is en tire ly specu la tive . L aw rence p rov ide s no ho sp ita l

reco rds to spec ify the d a tes o f a l leg ed sh ift reduc t ion s , and no ev iden ce o f w h ich doc tors

rece ived m o re o r be tter sh ift assignm en ts than he d id . A cco rd ing ly , like the d istric t cou rt,
2

w e conc lude tha t the reco rd w ou ld no t pe rm it a rea sonab le ju ry to find tha t the cha llenged

d isavow ed rep r im and , by i tse lf , su ff ic ien t ly a ffec ted the term s and cond i tion s o f L aw rence ’s

emp loym en t to con stitu te an adve rse emp loym en t ac tion .

L aw rence a lso ch a l lenges the d is tr ic t cou r t’s de term ina t ion tha t he cou ld no t sa tisfy

the fina l p rong o f a p rim a fac ie d isc rim ina tion ca se , name ly , a show ing o f su rround ing

c ircum s tances pe rm itting an in fe rence o f d isc rim ina tion . See B eye r v . C oun ty o f N a ssau ,

524 F .3d a t 163 . L aw rence con tend s tha t such an infe rence w as suppo rted by the d ispa ra te

trea tm en t o f M a rk K h ilnan i, a non -A frican -Am e rican doc to r on du ty on M ay 26 , 2005 , w ho

d id no t rece ive a s im ila r rep rim and . The reco rd show s , how eve r, tha t Law rence and K h ilnan i

w e re no t “ sim ila rly s itua ted in a ll m a te ria l re spec ts” becau se (1 ) N yack ho sp ita l o ffic ia ls no t

cha rged w ith d isc rim ina tion comp la ined abou t L aw rence’s conduc t, bu t no t K h ilnan i’s ; and

(2) L aw rence , the fo rm er in ter im em ergen cy dep ar tm en t d irec tor , w as s ign ifican t ly m o re

In h is b r ie f , L aw rence a lso c ites h is ow n d epo s ition tes timony tha t “ the re w as a
2
d iscu ss ion in the g roup” du ring w h ich o the r doc to rs exp re ssed the ir v iew tha t L aw rence
rece ived w o rse sh ift ass ignm en ts b ecau se o f h is race . L aw rence D ep . T r . a t 177 . In
rev iew ing the d is tric t cou r t’s aw a rd o f summ a ry judgm en t, L aw rence’s hea rsay accoun t o f
doc tors’ s ta tem en ts of op in ion is no t adm iss ib le in ev iden ce . See Fed . R . C iv . P . 56 (e)(1) ;
Fed . R . Ev id . 802 .

5

expe rienced than K h ilnan i, a recen t m ed ica l schoo l g radua te . M ande ll v . C oun ty o f Su ffo lk ,

316 F .3d 368 , 379 (2d C ir . 2003 ); acco rd G raham v . Long Is land R .R ., 230 F .3d 34 , 39 (2d

C ir . 2000 ) . The reco rd doe s ind ica te , how eve r, tha t M eh lm an m ade rac ia lly in sen sitive

comm en ts on seve ra l occas ion s . N eve rthe le ss , becau se Law rence h a s fa iled to adduce
3

ev iden ce o f adverse em p loym en t ac t ion , w e n eed no t here dec ide w he the r M eh lman ’s

rema rk s a re su ffic ien t, even in the ab sence o f d ispa ra te trea tm en t, to pe rm it an in fe rence o f

d isc rim ina tion in th is ca se .

W e have con side red Law rence’s o the r a rgum en ts on appea l and conc lude tha t they

a re w ithou t m e rit. A cco rd ing ly , w e A FF IRM the judgm en t o f the d istric t cou rt.

FOR TH E COURT :
CATHER INE O ’HAGAN W OLFE , C lerk o f Cou r t

L aw rence does no t as se rt tha t “ th e w o rkp lace w as so seve re ly pe rm ea ted w ith
3
d isc r im ina to ry in tim ida t ion , r id icu le , and insu l t tha t the te rm s and cond ition s o f [h is]
emp loym en t w e re the reby a lte red .” F inche r v . D epo sito ry T ru st & C lea ring C o rp ., 604 F .3d
712 , 723 -24 (2d C ir. 2010 ) (d iscu ss ing e lem en ts of ho s t ile w o rk env ironm en t c la im ) .

6