Chamale-Eustace v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Stony Brook

Summary

The New York Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed an order denying Matthew Berchuck’s motion to dismiss claims arising from alleged gender-based mistreatment of a surgical technologist during surgery. The court held that the complaint did not allege a sufficient adverse employment action for a disparate-treatment claim under 42 USC § 1983, that Berchuck could not be liable for aiding and abetting his own alleged NYSHRL violation, and that the negligence claim was abandoned. The court therefore granted dismissal of the challenged causes of action against Berchuck.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a cause of action under 42 USC § 1983 because the plaintiff did not allege an adverse employment action sufficient to support a disparate-treatment claim.
2. The NYSHRL disparate-treatment and hostile-work-environment claims failed insofar as asserted against Berchuck because he could not be held liable for aiding and abetting his own violation of the NYSHRL.
3. The common-law negligence claim was dismissed because the plaintiff abandoned it by failing to address it in opposition to Berchuck's motion and in her appellate brief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint alleged an adverse employment action sufficient to state a disparate-treatment gender-discrimination claim under 42 USC § 1983.
2. Whether Berchuck could be held liable under the New York State Human Rights Law for aiding and abetting his own alleged discrimination.
3. Whether the common-law negligence claim should be dismissed because the plaintiff abandoned it by failing to address it in opposition to the motion and on appeal.

Disposition

reversed