Court Reinstates Jury’s Retaliation Verdict for Female Doctor

Takeaway: Employers should closely scrutinize employment decisions made by supervisors concerning employees who have submitted complaints against them.  

After two male supervisors decided not to renew a female physician’s employment contract the year after she complained about confrontations with them, an appeals court upheld a retaliation verdict against the hospital and one supervisor and permitted her to pursue a claim against the other supervisor.

The plaintiff was a female rheumatologist who worked for the New York University (NYU) Langone Health system. After working for NYU for almost five years without any disciplinary issues, in September 2019, the plaintiff had a dispute about her office space with the site director for NYU Langone’s Lake Success location on Long Island, N.Y. The site director visited her office and told her that NYU had hired a new rheumatologist who would need to use her office two days a week. The plaintiff told the site director that she needed to review her employment contract with her attorney because she did not think her contract allowed NYU to require her to share an office.

At that point, the site director’s demeanor changed. According to the plaintiff, he started flailing his arms, pointing at items in her office, and saying that all of it belonged to NYU and that they owned her. She claimed that, under his breath, he then uttered a gender-based slur.

The plaintiff lodged a complaint with HR the day after the incident. She lodged another complaint with HR about a week later, after she said another male supervisor argued with her about the office space issue, telling her to “calm down” and being demeaning and patronizing to her. She told HR that her complaints were based on gender.

Toolkit: Managing Equal Employment Opportunity

Shortly thereafter, a female office manager who reported to the site director created a spreadsheet to record conduct issues regarding the plaintiff. In November 2020, the two doctors that the plaintiff had complained about exchanged emails with each other and senior hospital staff seeking to collect evidence of inappropriate behavior and communications between the plaintiff, staff, and patients. These emails led to the collection of negative information against the plaintiff that was used as the basis for not renewing her contract on Dec. 1, 2020.

In response, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit against various NYU Langone entities, including the two male doctors and other NYU Langone administrators, alleging violation of the federal Equal Pay Act (EPA) and the New York State Equal Pay Act, retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e, retaliation in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Administrative Code, and gender discrimination in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.

At trial, the jury found in favor of the defendants on the plaintiff’s federal and state EPA claims, and the district court denied the plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on these claims. The district court also granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to the male supervisor who allegedly told the plaintiff to “calm down.” The retaliation claims against NYU Langone and the site director went to the jury, which found in the plaintiff’s favor and awarded her $700,000 in compensatory damages. However, the district court then granted the defendants’ motion for JNOV, dismissing these claims.

Checklist: Retaliation Prevention

The plaintiff appealed these rulings to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The 2nd Circuit upheld the jury verdicts against the plaintiff’s EPA claims, finding insufficient evidence that a higher-paid male doctor was similarly situated to her.

Regarding the retaliation claims, the 2nd Circuit found that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to support her jury verdict against the hospital and the site director. First, the plaintiff engaged in protected activity in complaining of gender bias against the site director. Second, the jury could reasonably infer that the site director acted with retaliatory motive against the plaintiff in his collection of negative feedback about her. This negative feedback led directly to the nonrenewal of her contract.

The court further found that the plaintiff’s male supervisor also knew about her protected activity and participated in the collection of negative feedback concerning her performance. Thus, the court reversed the district court’s grant of JMOL that had dismissed her retaliation claim against him.

Thus, the 2nd Circuit reinstated the plaintiff’s $700,000 retaliation jury verdict and allowed her retaliation claim to proceed against her male supervisor.

Edelman v. NYU Langone, 2nd Cir., No. 24-251-cv (June 18, 2025).

Jeffrey Rhodes is an attorney with McInroy, Rigby & Rhodes LLP in Arlington, Va.