Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—2d Cir.: $700K jury award reinstated in favor of NYU hospital system rheumatologist fired after ‘chauvinism’ complaints, (Jun 20, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

Among other things, the rheumatologist noted her disappointment that in 2019, in a major hospital organization in New York, she still had “to contend with male chauvinism.”

Finding sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict awarding $700,000 in damages to a former NYU hospital system rheumatologist on her retaliation claims against NYU and the site director where she worked, the Second Circuit vacated the lower court’s grant of JNOV for those defendants and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict. While the appeals court also vacated the district court’s decision granting JMOL in favor of a supervisor on the doctor’s retaliation claim, it affirmed JNOV on her federal and state equal pay act claims (Edelman v. NYU Langone Health System, No. 24-251-cv (2d Cir. Jun. 18, 2025)).

Heated discussion. Recruited by the NYU hospital system to join its Lake Success office in 2014, the doctor negotiated her initial three-year contract, which was renewed in 2017 for another three years. Her first five years passed without any disciplinary issues but in September 2019, the site director informed her that a newly hired rheumatologist would need to use her office two days a week. When the doctor objected, the site director purportedly began “flailing his arms,” told her the office was not hers, and called her a “bitch” under his breath.

The next day, she verbally complained to an HR manager about the site director’s hostile and abusive behavior. The HR manager then discussed the incident with another HR employee, and both told the site director about the complaint. The HR manager and site director also discussed the complaint with a supervisor who then confronted the doctor while she was with patients, informing her that she needed to give up her space two days a week. When he told her to “calm down” during the discussion, she accused him of being demeaning and patronizing.

Male chauvinism. The doctor again complained to the HR manager, noting her disappointment that, in 2019, she still had “to contend with male chauvinism.” The HR manager did not respond to the doctor but did inform the supervisor about her complaint. The doctor continued to pursue her complaints, including sending an email to the HR manager mentioning retaliation.

Spreadsheet. The next day, the office manager, who reported to the site director, made her first entry on an “issues” spreadsheet with the doctor’s name on top. According to the office manager, the site director asked her to start maintaining the spreadsheet.

Around the same time, the hospital agreed to move forward with negotiating the contract renewal of the doctor’s colleague, who in the past had negotiated her contract together with the doctor. NYU told the doctor, however, that it would “let [her] know [their] plans.” Almost a year later, the stie director and two others sent the supervisor information they had collected on the doctor, including the spreadsheet, which was ultimately provided to a senior vice president. Based on that information, the VP made the decision to not renew the doctor’s contract.

Lower court proceedings. The doctor subsequently sued the NYU hospital system, the senior VP, the site director, and the supervisor, among others, asserting violations of the federal and state equal pay acts and retaliation under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL. The matter proceeded to a jury trial but before the case was submitted to the jury, the district court granted the defendants’ JMOL motion in part, entering judgment in favor of the senior VP on all claims of retaliation; in favor of the senior VP and the supervisor on all claims of discrimination; in favor of all defendants as to willfulness under the equal pay laws; and in favor of all defendants as to punitive damages.

The remaining claims of retaliation, discrimination, and equal pay were submitted to the jury, which found in favor of the doctor on her retaliation claims against NYU and the site director and awarded her $700,000 in compensatory damages. The jury found for the defendants on all other claims before it. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and the district court denied the doctor’s motion and vacated the jury’s verdict and damages award on her retaliation claims.

Equal pay claims. On appeal, the doctor first argued that the district court improperly denied her motion for JNOV or, in the alternative, for a new trial on her federal and state equal pay claims. Disagreeing, the Second Circuit noted that because she did not move for judgment as a matter of law before the case was submitted to the jury, she had to demonstrate manifest injustice to prevail on appeal, which she failed to do.

She offered evidence that a male rheumatologist at the practice was paid more than she was, but she failed to show they possessed equal skill. Not only did he have two more years of experience than her, he had previously served as chief rheumatologist for a large medical group and as a medical director supervising other physicians and staff, and there was no evidence she had comparable experience.

Nor was there evidence the two exerted equal effort as the male colleague’s annual production target, which was larger than hers, put him in the top 10 percent of rheumatologists in the county and he saw patients five days a week while she saw patients fewer than four days a week. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the doctor’s JMOL motion as to these claims.

Punitive damages. The doctor next argued that the district court erred by granting JMOL in favor of the defendants on her punitive damages claims under Title VII and the NYCHRL. But while the record supported a finding that the defendants retaliated against her, that, said the court, was not sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages. Affirming the lower court’s judgment, the appeals court explained that the doctor failed to point to any evidence suggesting that any of the defendants retaliated against her “with willful or wanton negligence, or recklessness, or a conscious disregard of the rights of others,” or with a higher degree of moral culpability than is present in every instance of retaliation in the workplace.

Retaliation claims against NYU and the site director. The appeals court agreed, however, with the doctor’s argument that the district court improperly vacated the jury’s verdict on her retaliation claims against NYU and the site director. She was subjected to an adverse action when her employment was terminated, and she engaged in protected activity when she complained to HR at least three times about the site director’s and supervisor’s discriminatory, hostile, and sexist behavior.

Though the site director claimed he did not know her complaints concerned gender bias, the doctor testified that she told the HR manager he had called her a “bitch” under his breath and she felt it was a “sexist, discriminatory, and chauvinistic” attack. Though the HR manager’s notes did not include this information, the notes were electronically marked as having been altered almost six months after the fact. Thus, the jury was entitled to discredit the notes and to believe the doctor’s testimony that she told the HR manager everything that happened.

The HR manager, the court observed, would therefore have understood that the doctor’s complaint involved gender discrimination, and she testified that she explained the nature of the complaint to the site director. The site director also testified that he understood the nature of the complaint, including that it was not about office space, but “about the way that [he] spoke to her,” and that he was “bothered by” it. In addition, the senior VP testified that after speaking with the HR manager, he understood that the doctor filed a complaint against the site director “for being aggressive and retaliating for not allowing her to expand her hours.” Their understanding, said the court, “bolsters the inference that [the HR manager] did know that [the doctor’s] complaint was about more than just a dispute over office space.”

Credibility. In addition, in September 2019, the doctor, in an email to the HR manager, expressed her frustration that as a female physician, she was dealing “with male chauvinism.” Noting that the HR manager denied any recollection of that email, even after reviewing it at trial, the court found the jury could reasonably have questioned her credibility.

Finally, the court noted that the doctor, in her November 2019 email, advised the HR manager that her complaints related to the “treatment of females within [the] workplace at NYU” and that she felt the behavior of both the site director and supervisor had been “not appropriate” and amounted to “abusive and bullying behavior.” A jury, said the court, could reasonably have found that the site director was aware the doctor engaged in protected activity as soon as the day after her first complaint and at least through mid-November 2019.

Causation. As to causation, the court emphasized that summary judgment in favor of an employer on this prong should be granted only sparingly “because careful scrutiny of the factual allegations may reveal circumstantial evidence to support the required inference of discrimination [or retaliation].” Based on its review of the record, the court found ample circumstantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict and also supported an inference that the site director harbored retaliatory intent, which could be imputed to NYU under the “cat’s paw” theory.

Site director’s liability. The evidence presented at trial, said the court, was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that the site director was liable as an aider-or-abettor under the NYSHRL and both directly and as an aider-or-abettor under the NYCHRL. Here, the court pointed to the temporal proximity between the doctor’s complaints and the site director’s actions, and specifically, the office manager’s entry on the “issues” spreadsheet just one day after the doctor followed up with HR manager about her complaints. To the court, it was significant that during the doctor’s first five years, there was no evidence such a log had ever been prepared or that there had previously been any complaints against her to log. Nor was there any evidence indicating a log had been kept for any other doctor.

The evidence also supported an inference that the site director and senior VP began collecting information about the doctor to ensure that her contract would not be renewed. Though the site director testified that some of the issues described in the log related to “patient care,” he did not report those issues until her contract was up for renewal. Instead, the court observed, the information was delivered to the senior VP for the first time shortly before the expiration of her contract and formed the sole basis for the VP’s decision not to renew the contract. Thus, a reasonable jury could conclude that but for the site director’s collection of the information, the VP would not have terminated the doctor’s employment.

Moreover, said the court, despite the year-long delay between the doctor’s protected activity and the nonrenewal of her contract, it could infer causation from the fact she suffered adverse consequences “at the first actual opportunity to retaliate.” Accordingly, the court found the site director participated in the conduct underlying the doctor’s retaliation claim and could be held liable as an aider-or-abettor under both the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. A reasonable jury could also infer that retaliatory animus was at least a motivating factor underlying this conduct, and thus the jury’s verdict as to his direct liability under the NYCHRL was also supported. Therefore, the district court erred in granting JNOV in his favor.

Cat’s paw liability under Title VII. And while the site director did not have ultimate decision-making authority over the doctor’s contract, he initiated the compilation of the log of issues, which was the sole basis for the VP’s nonrenewal decision. Indeed, the VP admitted he did not interview the doctor, the site director, the supervisor, or any of the staff members or patients identified as having complained about the doctor. Nor did he ask about any HR investigation involving the doctor and was thus unaware of her complaints.

Accordingly, said the court, “the jury could reasonably have concluded that this was not an adequate inquiry into the charges against [the doctor], and that [the VP] – acting on behalf of NYU – was negligent in accepting the reports and terminating [her] contract as a result.” Thus, the jury could reasonably find NYU liable for retaliation under a cat’s paw theory, said the court, vacating the district court’s judgment as to the doctor’s retaliation claims against NYU and the site director and directing it to reinstate the jury’s verdict on these claims.

Retaliation claims against the supervisor. Finally, the appeals court found the district court improperly granted JMOL as to the supervisor on the doctor’s retaliation claims. There was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the supervisor knew of the doctor’s protected activity and that the nonrenewal of her contract was causally related to her protected activity. The evidence also supported a finding that the supervisor knew her complaint was based on gender and that he, along with the site director, was involved in gathering information about the doctor that was ultimately the basis for her nonrenewal. In addition, the court stated, there was evidence to support a finding that the supervisor was motivated by retaliatory animus. Accordingly, the court vacated the entry of JMOL as to this claim and remanded for a new trial.

The case is No. 24-251-cv.

Judge: Merriam, S.

Attorneys: Joseph Martin Labuda (Milman Labuda Law Group) for Sari Edelman. Richard S. Schoenstein (Tarter, Krinsky & Drogin) for NYU Langone Health System, NYU Langone Hospitals, NYU Langone Medical Center, NYU Langone Nassau Rheumatology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Hospitals Center, Andrew T. Rubin, David Kaplan, Joseph Antonik, and Joshua Swirnow.

Companies: NYU Langone Health System; NYU Langone Hospitals; NYU Langone Medical Center; NYU Langone Nassau Rheumatology; NYU School of Medicine; NYU Grossman School of Medicine; NYU Hospitals Center

Cases: Retaliation Discrimination PayDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discharge StateLawClaims ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews