Leichter v. St. Vincent's Hosp.,
No. 94 Civ. 7537 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2001)

The Southern District of New York denied a hospital summary judgment in a Title VII discrimination suit brought by the hospital's Department of Medicine's Business and Faculty Practice Manager ("the Manager"). The Manager had been responsible for finance and billing operations, supervision of personnel, purchasing and maintaining equipment, ordering supplies, scheduling patients, and handling personnel issues for the faculty practice and medical service corporation. After leaving for her six-month maternity leave, the Manager noticed ads in the newspaper soliciting applicants for a Faculty Practice Manager at the hospital. The hospital claimed that it had developed an expansion plan for the practice that required additional administrators and that it had decided to employ two individuals, rather than one, to perform the Manager's old duties.

Upon returning from her maternity leave, the Manager claimed that her duties were reduced to those of a receptionist. The new Faculty Practice Manager occupied her office, used her computer and telephone, and supervised the personnel that the Manager used to have direct authority over. After complaining to the Directors, the Manager was notified that she would be reporting to the new Faculty Practice Manager in the future. Eventually, the Manager asserted, she was excluded from meetings and fingered for violations she did not commit. She was eventually terminated.

The Southern District of New York District Court found that the Manager had set forth a prima facie case of discrimination since she alleged, and provided evidence supporting her allegation, that the hospital subjected her to "diminished material responsibilities." The court likewise held that the Manager could survive summary judgment since she had provided more than minimal evidence indicating that the hospital's explanation for its restructuring of her job (i.e., the planned expansion) was a pretext. The court made similar findings in upholding the Manager's retaliation claims.