Case Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Natara Matias brought employment-discrimination and retaliation claims against New York and Presbyterian Hospital and others, alleging adverse treatment including repeated suspensions. The Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.) entered an order on September 30, 2014 granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. On March 24, 2016, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the order, without costs. The opinion lists counsel for the parties and notes that MAZZARELLI, J.P., MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, and WEBBER, JJ., concurred.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether plaintiff produced evidence that defendants were motivated by discriminatory animus sufficient to support national-origin-based employment discrimination claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws.
Whether the absence of evidence of discriminatory animus is fatal to a mixed-motive claim.
Whether plaintiff engaged in "protected activity" sufficient to support her retaliation claims.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Askin v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 110 A.D.3d 621, 973 N.Y.S.2d 629 (1st Dept.2013)	Support for the proposition that discriminatory animus is an essential element of national-origin discrimination claims under the State and City Human Rights Laws.	The court relied on the principle to conclude plaintiff failed to produce evidence of discriminatory animus and thus could not sustain her discrimination claims.
Bennett v. Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 A.D.3d 29, 46, 936 N.Y.S.2d 112 (1st Dept.2011), lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 811, 2012 WL 1432090 (2012)	That absence of evidence of discriminatory animus is fatal to a mixed-motive claim.	The court applied Bennett to hold that plaintiff's lack of evidence of animus also defeated any mixed-motive theory.
Fruchtman v. City of New York, 129 A.D.3d 500, 501, 11 N.Y.S.3d 582 (1st Dept.2015)	Definition/requirement of "protected activity" for retaliation claims.	The court cited Fruchtman to conclude there was no evidence plaintiff engaged in protected activity, undermining her retaliation claims.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reasoned that plaintiff had not produced any evidence that defendants were motivated by discriminatory animus in subjecting her to adverse treatment (including repeated suspensions), and that discriminatory animus is an essential element of national-origin discrimination claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. The court further held that the absence of such evidence likewise defeats any mixed-motive claim, citing Bennett. Regarding the retaliation claims, the court found no evidence that plaintiff ever engaged in "protected activity," citing Fruchtman. On that basis the court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Holding and Implications

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint.

Implications: The direct effect is the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint and affirmance of defendants' summary-judgment victory. The opinion applies existing case law to the facts and does not announce a new legal rule or precedent.

Show full summary ...

Natara MATIAS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants–Respondents.

Akin Law Group PLLC, New York (Garima Vir of counsel), for appellant.

Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., New York (John F. Fullerton III of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered September 30, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that defendants were motivated by discriminatory animus in subjecting her to adverse treatment, including repeated suspensions, an essential element of her claims for national-origin-based employment discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws (see Askin v. Department of Educ. of the City

of N.Y., 110 A.D.3d 621, 973 N.Y.S.2d 629 1st Dept.2013; Bennett v. Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 A.D.3d 29, 46, 936 N.Y.S.2d 112 1st Dept.2011, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 811, 2012 WL 1432090 2012 ). The absence of any evidence of discriminatory animus is equally fatal to any claim of mixed motive (see Bennett at 40, 936 N.Y.S.2d 112).

There is no evidence that plaintiff ever engaged in any “protected activity” for purposes of her retaliation claims (Fruchtman v. City of New York, 129 A.D.3d 500, 501, 11 N.Y.S.3d 582 1st Dept.2015 ).

MAZZARELLI, J.P., MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, WEBBER, JJ., concur.

Matias v. N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp.