# Carmody v. New York University

> District Court, S.D. New York · September 7, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10354147

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** September 7, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10354147

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--- -------------------------------------------------------- X
:
KRISTIN A. CARMODY, :
Plaintiff, :
: 21 Civ. 8186 (LGS)
-against- :
: OPINION AND ORDER
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, et al., :
Defendants. :
----------------------------------------------------------- X
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
Plaintiff Dr. Kristin A. Carmody brings this employment discrimination action against
Defendants New York University (“NYU”), NYU Grossman School of Medicine (“NYU School
of Medicine”) and NYU Langone Hospitals (“NYU Langone”) (collectively, the “NYU
Defendants”), and their employees Drs. Steven B. Abramson, Andrew M. Brotman, Robert J.
Femia, Fritz Francois and Robert I. Grossman (the “Individual Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants terminated her employment due to her gender and in retaliation for her
opposition to gender discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), the New York City Human Rights Law
(“NYCHRL”), the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) and the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”). She
further alleges that while she was an employee, she was underpaid compared to her male peers,
in violation of the EPA, the NYSHRL, the NYCHRL and NYLL. She further alleges that
Defendants defamed her and breached her employment contract by terminating her employment
with the NYU Defendants. Defendants move for summary judgment. For the reasons given
below, Defendants’ motion is granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are drawn from the parties’ Rule 56.1 statements and other
submissions on this motion. The facts are undisputed or based on record evidence drawing all
reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff as the non-moving party. See N.Y. State Teamsters

Conf. Pension & Ret. Fund v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 24 F.4th 163, 170 (2d Cir. 2022).
A. Plaintiff’s Employment at NYU
Plaintiff began working at NYU School of Medicine and NYU Langone in July 2013 as a
physician in the Department of Emergency Medicine (the “Department”). In October 2015,
Defendant Dr. Robert Femia became the chair of the Department. In February 2017, Femia
promoted Plaintiff to Vice Chair, Academic Affairs and Education Innovation, a position she
held until the end of her employment with the NYU Defendants. In this position, Plaintiff was
responsible for all educational activities within the Department. When she was promoted to Vice
Chair, Plaintiff signed an employment agreement which included a term of one year. After this
one-year period expired in 2018, Plaintiff became an at-will employee. Femia recommended
compensation for Vice Chairs to Defendant Dr. Andrew Brotman, who approved

recommendations in his role as Vice Dean at NYU School of Medicine. The Vice Chairs had
different responsibilities, and their compensation was based on various factors, including their
specific responsibilities, the degree to which their work took place on multiple NYU campuses,
the revenue they generated, the impact on patients and their years of experience.
B. The November 30 Patient Visit and Plaintiff’s Resignation
On November 30, 2020, Plaintiff was working in the Emergency Room, along with
Dr. Amber Ciardiello, a fourth-year resident. Plaintiff received a message from an attending
physician regarding a patient, the spouse of an NYU employee (the “Patient”). A nurse took the
Patient’s vital signs, which included an abnormally high heart rate. Ciardiello physically
examined the Patient under Plaintiff’s supervision. During the exam, the Patient reported
symptoms of burning while urinating, abdominal pressure, chills and blood in her urine.
Ciardiello ordered further testing and diagnosed the Patient with acute cystitis with hematuria. A
nurse took the Patient’s vital signs again. The Patient now had a low-grade fever and her heart

rate remained elevated. Plaintiff and Ciardiello discussed prescribing antibiotics sufficient to
address a potential kidney infection. The Patient’s electronic medical records contain the
following attestation signed by Plaintiff:
I performed a history and physical examination of [Patient] and discussed her
management with the resident on the treatment team. I agree with the history,
physical, assessment, and plan of care with the following exceptions and
additions: hematuria, frequency, dysuria, no abd pain, no flank pain, no vag
symptoms. PE: benign w/o TTP . . . . I personally supervised all documented
procedures.

The first sentence is standard text inserted by the electronic medical records system after a
physician selects it as the one possible option from a drop-down menu and it cannot be edited by
the physician. The first portion of the second sentence and the complete third sentence are also
standard language automatically populated by the records system. Plaintiff manually entered the
exceptions and additions contained in the medical records.
The next day, the Patient’s husband sent an email to Nader Mherabi, the Chief
Information Officer at NYU Langone, and Dr. Leora Horwitz, a physician at NYU Langone.
That email stated the Patient had been discharged despite being septic, and immediately went to
another hospital, where she stayed overnight. Mherabi forwarded the message to Femia and
Defendant Dr. Fritz Francois, the then-Chief Medical Officer at NYU Langone. The Patient’s
husband also sent an email to Drs. Catherine Jamin, Vice Chair of Clinical Operations in the
Department, and Benjamin Wertheimer, Patient Safety Officer, seeking to file an official report
regarding his wife’s experience. Jamin and Wertheimer spoke with the husband. Wertheimer
emailed a summary of the conversation to Jamin, Francois and Femia and other staff at NYU.
The summary stated that the Patient reported that she had not been seen by an attending
physician and that “it is [Department] policy for all patients to be seen by attending.”
Wertheimer also stated that a Root Cause Analysis (“RCA”), a quality assurance practice

“initiated whenever there is a quality of safety concern,” was likely required. Jamin reviewed
the Patient’s medical records and spoke with Plaintiff in a brief conversation, in which they did
not discuss whether Plaintiff had examined the Patient, but only whether Plaintiff “reexamined”
the Patient. On December 2, Femia spoke with Plaintiff. In that conversation, Femia did not ask
any questions about the medical records, Plaintiff’s medical impressions or the standard of care
delivered.
On December 2, 2020, the Patient and her husband sent a letter to Jamin, Wetheimer and
Dr. Silas Smith, who runs the Safety Fellowship in the Department. That letter stated, “She
[Plaintiff] never saw me. I was only seen by one young female doctor who I now know is Dr.
Ciardiello.” Wertheimer forwarded the letter to Francois and others. On December 4, Defendant

Andrew Brotman, EVP & Vice Dean, Clinical Affairs and Strategy at NYU School of Medicine,
emailed Femia, saying Dr. Robert Grossman, Dean of the NYU School of Medicine and CEO of
NYU Langone, was told that an attending physician had “signed of[f] without seeing the patient”
and that Grossman “want[ed] to fire [Plaintiff].” At that time, Femia did not believe Plaintiff
should be fired.
On December 6, Femia called Plaintiff and gave her the option to resign. On that call, he
stated that the reason was “what [Plaintiff] wrote in the chart.” Shortly after her call with Femia,
Plaintiff sent a text message to a colleague, stating that her employment had been terminated
“[b]ased on the fact that I wrote PE: though probably killed myself on this one . . . If I had just
signed the note I would have been better off.” Plaintiff submitted a letter of resignation via email
the same day. Plaintiff’s role as Vice Chair of Education was first filled by Dr. Christopher
Caspers, a man, and then by Dr. Selin Sagalowsky, a woman.
C. Subsequent Events
On December 8, 2020, the Department held a Morbidity and Mortality Review (“M&M”)

regarding the Patient’s care. The M&M is a monthly meeting at which departments review and
discuss cases to improve processes and patient outcomes. At the M&M, Smith presented the
case with Plaintiff’s name anonymized, but Femia revealed that the attending physician in the
Patient’s case was Plaintiff and that Plaintiff had resigned. On December 16, 2020, the RCA
committee met and concluded that the standard of care had not been met with respect to the
Patient.
Outside of these meetings, Francois stated that Plaintiff had “almost killed a patient” and
that the Patient “almost died.” At a meeting on December 9, Defendant Steven Abramson,
Executive Vice Dean for Education, Faculty and Academic Affairs at NYU School of Medicine,
stated that Plaintiff had “committed fraud and someone almost died.” At the M&M, Femia

stated Plaintiff’s actions were egregious and amounted to fraud in the eyes of NYU leadership.
In July 2021, at an orientation for new residents in the Department, Grossman described the
Patient’s care as an example of the importance of an attending physician physically examining
every patient. Brotman also provided a copy of the Patient’s letter to a resident and discussed
issues regarding safety and the quality of care in the Department. That resident went on to
discuss the letter with others in the Department.
STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate where the record establishes that “there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a). “An issue of fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for a nonmoving party.”1 Frost v. N.Y.C. Police Dep’t, 980 F.3d 231, 242 (2d

Cir. 2020). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the
governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); accord Saleem v. Corp. Transp. Grp., 854 F.3d 131, 148
(2d Cir. 2017).
In evaluating a motion for summary judgment, a court must “construe the record
evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences
in its favor.” Torcivia v. Suffolk Cty., 17 F.4th 342, 354 (2d Cir. 2021). When the movant
properly supports its motion with evidentiary materials, the opposing party must establish a
genuine issue of fact by citing to particular parts of materials in the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c)(1)(A). In considering Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court is “required
to accept all sworn statements by [Plaintiff] as to matters on which she [is] competent to testify,
including what she did, what she observed, and what she was told by company managers.”
Davis-Garett v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 921 F.3d 30, 46 (2d Cir. 2019). “A party opposing
summary judgment normally does not show the existence of a genuine issue of fact to be tried
merely by making assertions that are based on speculation or are conclusory.” S. Katzman
Produce Inc. v. Yadid, 999 F.3d 867, 877 (2d Cir. 2021). The Court also “must disregard all

1 Unless otherwise indicated, in quoting cases, all internal quotation marks, alterations,
emphases, footnotes and citations are omitted.
evidence favorable to [Defendants] that the jury is not required to believe,” that is, “give
credence to the evidence favoring [Plaintiff] as well as that evidence supporting [Defendants]
that is uncontradicted and unimpeached, at least to the extent that that evidence comes from
disinterested witnesses.” Davis-Garett, 921 F.3d at 46 (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing

Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 151 (2000)).
DISCUSSION
A. Discrimination Claims (Claims 1, 3 and 5)
Plaintiff brings a Title VII claim against the NYU Defendants and NYSHRL and
NYCHRL claims against all Defendants, alleging discriminatory firing on the basis of sex.
Summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part on these claims as set forth below.
1. Title VII Claim
Title VII makes it unlawful for employers “to discharge . . . or otherwise to discriminate
against any individual” in his or her employment “because of such individual’s . . . sex.”
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Title VII “discrimination claims are governed at the summary
judgment stage by the burden-shifting analysis first established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).” Tolbert v. Smith, 790 F.3d 427, 434 (2d Cir. 2015); accord Smith
v. N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp., 440 F. Supp. 3d 303, 328 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Under the McDonnell
Douglas framework:
“First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. If the
plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the employer
to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the disparate
treatment. If the employer articulates such a reason for its actions, the burden
shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s reason was in fact a pretext
for discrimination.”

Buon v. Spindler, 65 F.4th 64, 78-79 (2d Cir. 2023).
a. Prima Facie Case
Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination. To establish a prima facie
case, “[P]laintiff must . . . demonstrat[e] that (1) she was within the protected class; (2) she was
qualified for the position; (3) she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) the
adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.”

Walsh v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 828 F.3d 70, 75 (2d Cir. 2016). “The burden of establishing a
prima facie case is not onerous and has been frequently described as minimal.” Id. Defendants
do not dispute that Plaintiff is within a protected class and was subject to an adverse employment
action. In the context of wrongful termination, the inquiry into whether a plaintiff was qualified
instead asks whether the plaintiff was performing her duties satisfactorily. See Dawson v.
Bumble & Bumble, 398 F.3d 211, 216 (2d Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by Zarda v.
Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018) (en banc); accord Kemp v. Regeneron
Pharms., No. 20 Civ. 2270, 2023 WL 159786, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2023), appeal docketed
No. 23-174 (2d Cir. Feb. 9, 2023). Plaintiff offers undisputed evidence that she had a spotless
record and reputation and had never received a negative review or disciplinary action. She also

offers evidence that it was a prevalent practice for an attending physician to make the required
attestation on a patient note without repeating the physical exam conducted by a resident or
editing the note. Regarding the portion of the Patient’s health record that Plaintiff manually
inserted, which includes a reference to a physical examination, Plaintiff offers evidence that
these portions are not part of the patient record to which an attending physician attests and are
instead internal notes for purposes of further treatment.
As to the final requirement, Plaintiff has proffered sufficient evidence for a reasonable
jury to conclude that her termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of
discrimination. Plaintiff introduces evidence that physicians attesting to a resident’s note
without personally re-examining a patient was common. For example, she provides an email
from Dr. William Chiang, another physician in the Department, stating “[a]ll of us have attested
to the resident’s note without evaluating the patient physically.” She also offers an email record
showing anonymous comments, including a statement that “[t]he surgery attendings attest notes

stating that they examined the patient, when they only rarely are seen physically in the
emergency department,” and an email from Dr. Kar-mun Woo describing NYU’s “accepted
culture of not seeing every [patient]” in which an unnamed intern stated only 25 to 50% of
attending physicians examined a patient after a resident, notwithstanding the mandatory
attestation. Plaintiff also introduces evidence of a male physician who was not disciplined after
making notations in the chart of a family member who was not his patient. The physician was
not disciplined, but only told that he could not do that.
“An inference of discrimination can arise from circumstances including, but not limited
to, the employer’s . . . invidious comments about others in the employee’s protected group; or the
more favorable treatment of employees not in the protected group; or the sequence of events

leading to the plaintiff’s discharge.” Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 312 (2d Cir.
2015). First, Plaintiff offers evidence that she was replaced with Caspers, a man, following her
termination. See id. at 312-13 (“[A]n inference of discrimination also arises when an employer
replaces a terminated or demoted employee with an individual outside the employee’s protected
class.”). She also offers evidence that Grossman referred to a female doctor as a “bitch,” and
Femia laughed about Grossman’s comment when recounting it to Plaintiff. See Chin v. Port
Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135, 150 (2d Cir. 2012) (“Evidence of an employer’s general
practice of discrimination may be highly relevant to an individual disparate treatment . . .
claim.”). Finally, Plaintiff offers evidence that a reasonable jury could credit that she was treated
worse during her employment than similarly situated male employees, leading to the inference
that this discriminatory treatment culminated in her discriminatory firing. For example, she
offers evidence that when she was promoted to Vice Chair, she had to go through an extensive
application process, unlike Femia. She also offers evidence that Dr. Mathew Foley, a male Vice

Chair, received a more favorable contract than Plaintiff, including a longer term and guaranteed
raises upon completion of certain goals. Taken together, this evidence is sufficient to conclude
that Plaintiff has established a prima facie case under Title VII.
b. Pretext and Motivating Factor
Under the next step in the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework, Defendants
must offer “a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for [their] actions.” Kirkland v. Cablevision
Sys., 760 F.3d 223, 225 (2d Cir. 2014). Defendants argue that Plaintiff was terminated because
she falsified a patient record. Having articulated a legitimate reason, the burden shifts back to
Plaintiff to prove this reason was a pretext for invidious discrimination. Id. “To avoid summary
judgment in an employment discrimination case, the plaintiff is not required to show that the

employer’s proffered reasons were false or played no role in the employment decision, but only
that they were not the only reasons and that the prohibited factor was at least one of the
motivating factors.” Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130, 138 (2d Cir. 2008).
Plaintiff offers sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that prohibited
discrimination was at least one of the motivating factors in her termination. As discussed, she
offers evidence that attending physicians were required to attest that they performed a physical
examination of patients and did not always reexamine patients after a resident did so, and that a
male doctor was treated much more leniently when entering information on the chart of a patient
whom he did not treat. She also offers evidence, contrary to Defendants’ arguments, that she did
not admit to Femia that she documented a physical exam that she did not do; and that writing
notes in the attestation about the care and treatment of a patient was her practice for all patient
cases, as it was for other attending physicians in the Emergency Department.
Defendants cite the lack of discriminatory comments from the Individual Defendants to

Plaintiff about her gender; however, “[d]irect evidence of discrimination, a smoking gun, is
typically unavailable.” Holcomb, 521 F.3d at 141. Defendants note that Plaintiff was replaced
with another woman, Sagalowsky. However, whether Plaintiff was replaced by Caspers (male)
or Sagalowsky (female) is a disputed fact for which both sides proffer evidence. For summary
judgment, Plaintiff’s version of events is assumed to be true. See Davis-Garett, 921 F.3d at 45-
48. Defendants detail Femia’s history of professionally supporting women, including Plaintiff.
Although his hiring and support of Plaintiff may “strongly suggest that invidious discrimination
was unlikely,” Grady v. Affiliated Cent., Inc., 130 F.3d 553, 560 (2d Cir. 1997), weighing the
totality of evidence is a quintessential jury function and inappropriate at summary judgment.
If a jury credits Plaintiff’s evidence, it could reasonably conclude that gender-based

discrimination was “at least one of the motivating factors” explaining the differential treatment
Plaintiff experienced. This is sufficient to preclude summary judgment on the Title VII claim.
2. NYSHRL & NYCHRL Claims
Summary judgment is denied on the gender-based discrimination claims brought under
the NYSHRL and NYCHRL against the NYU Defendants, as these statutes parallel or are more
generous to plaintiffs than Title VII. Summary judgment is also denied with respect to
Grossman and Femia, as Plaintiff has proffered sufficient evidence of their involvement in
discriminatory conduct. However, summary judgment is granted with respect to Abramson,
Brotman and Francois, as the record evidence is insufficient to show their involvement in
Plaintiff’s termination.
The NYSHRL makes it unlawful “[f]or an employer . . . because of an individual’s . . .
sex . . . to discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate against such individual
. . . in terms, conditions or privileges of employment.” N.Y. Exec. Law. § 296(1)(a). Section 8-
107(1)(a) of the NYCHRL makes it “an unlawful discriminatory practice . . . [f]or an employer

or an employee or agent thereof, because of the . . . gender . . . of any person . . . to discharge
from employment such person [or to] discriminate against such person in compensation or in
terms, conditions or privileges of employment.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(1)(a). “To
establish a gender discrimination claim under the NYCHRL, the plaintiff need only demonstrate
by a preponderance of the evidence that she has been treated less well than other employees
because of her gender.” Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102, 110
(2d Cir. 2013). The NYCHRL is less demanding of plaintiffs than Title VII on discrimination
claims. See Cadet v. All. Nursing Staffing of N.Y., Inc., 632 F. Supp. 3d 202, 235 (S.D.N.Y.
2022) (“[F]ederal civil rights statutes serve as a floor below which the City’s Human Rights law
cannot fall.”). For claims that accrued on or after October 11, 2019, the effective date of recent

amendments, “the standard for [NYSHRL] claims [is] closer to the standard of the NYCHRL.”
Livingston v. City of New York, 563 F. Supp. 3d 201, 232 n.14 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). Because all of
Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claims accrued on or after December 2020, they “rise and fall with her
NYCHRL claims.” Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P., 568 F. Supp. 3d 314, 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
Plaintiff’s Title VII claim of discriminatory termination survives Defendants’ motion. Because
the NYSHRL and NYCHRL parallel Title VII in some respects and are more generous than Title
VII in others, Plaintiff’s state and city claims for discriminatory termination survive summary
judgment for the same reasons and a fortiori.
Unlike the Title VII discrimination claim, which can be asserted only against the NYU
Defendants, Plaintiff also brings the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against the Individual
Defendants. See Sassaman v. Gamache, 566 F.3d 307, 315 (2d Cir. 2009) (finding in most
cases, “individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII”); accord Accely v. Consol. Edison

Co. of N.Y., No. 19 Civ. 5984, 2022 WL 973415, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2022). The
NYCHRL creates principal liability for individual defendants who “participate in the conduct
giving rise to a discrimination claim” by making it unlawful “[f]or an employer or an employee
or agent thereof, because of [a protected characteristic] to discriminate against such person in . . .
terms, conditions or privileges of employment.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(1)(a)(3); see also
Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138, 158 (2d Cir. 2004); accord Deveaux v. Skechers USA, Inc.,
No. 19 Civ. 9734, 2020 WL 1812741, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2020). Separately, the NYCHRL
provides that “[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to aid, abet, incite,
compel or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under this chapter, or to attempt to do
so.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(6). Under the NYSHRL, “an individual who has an

ownership interest in the relevant organization or the power to do more than carry out personnel
decisions made by others” is liable as a principal, but under the “aiding and abetting
provision . . . personal liability may be imposed on an individual who does not have such
authority, but who also ‘actually participates in the conduct giving rise to the discrimination.’”
Deveaux, 2020 WL 1812741, at *3 (quoting Townsend v. Benjamin Enters., Inc., 679 F.3d 41, 57
(2d Cir. 2012), and then quoting Feingold, 366 F.3d at 158). Defendants argue that summary
judgment should be granted on the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims as to Grossman, Francois,
Brotman and Abramson, because none of them participated in the decision to end Plaintiff’s
employment. They further argue that summary judgment should be granted to Femia because he
lacked discriminatory animus.
Summary judgment is granted with respect to Abramson, Brotman, and Francois on the
NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. Plaintiff offers evidence that Femia stated that the decision to

terminate Plaintiff’s employment “came from on high” -- i.e., was driven by hospital leadership
-- and that he “did not have sole discretion” with respect to her firing. Without more, these
references are not enough to create liability in any specific member of NYU’s leadership team.
With respect to Brotman, the only evidence connecting him (rather than NYU leadership
generally) to Plaintiff’s firing is an email thread in which he states to Femia, “[T]he boss . . .
wants to fire [Plaintiff].” With respect to Abramson, Plaintiff similarly offers only references to
NYU leadership generally and an email thread in which Grossman states Abramson should read
the letter sent by the Patient “and then we should discuss.” With respect to Francois, although
there is evidence that Francois gave Femia advice regarding Plaintiff’s misconduct, Plaintiff
identifies no evidence connecting Francois to any impermissible discrimination or pressure on

Femia to make any particular decision with respect to Plaintiff. Accordingly, summary judgment
is granted with respect to these Defendants.
Summary judgment is denied with respect to Grossman and Femia. Plaintiff offers
evidence that “leadership” pressured Femia to terminate Plaintiff’s employment and that this
group includes Grossman. Brotman referred to “the boss . . . want[ing] to fire” Plaintiff and
testified at his deposition that he was referring to Grossman. Plaintiff also offers evidence that
Grossman referred to a female employee using discriminatory language. This is sufficient to
raise a question of fact as to whether Grossman “participate[d] in conduct giving rise to a
discrimination claim.” Regarding Femia, Defendants do not dispute that he was involved in
Plaintiff’s termination, but argue that he lacked discriminatory animus. This argument fails
because Plaintiff introduces evidence of Femia’s unwillingness to hire female staff members
Plaintiff recommended and evidence that Femia relayed Grossman’s discriminatory remark to
Plaintiff and laughed about it. Accordingly, summary judgment is denied as to these Defendants.

B. Retaliation Claims (Claims 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9)
Plaintiff brings retaliation claims against the NYU Defendants under Title VII, against all
Defendants under the NYSHRL, NYCHRL and NYLL and against the NYU Defendants and
Grossman, Brotman and Femia under the EPA, alleging retaliation for her opposition to gender
discrimination, including discriminatory pay. Summary judgment is granted in part and denied
in part as set forth below.
1. Title VII
Title VII bars an employer from “discriminat[ing] against any of [its] employees . . .
because [the employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by
[Title VII].” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). As with discrimination claims, retaliation claims are
assessed under the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas. See Ya-Chen Chen v.

City Univ. of N.Y., 805 F.3d 59, 70 (2d Cir. 2015). In the context of retaliation claims:
[T]he plaintiff bears the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of retaliation
by offering evidence that she participated in a protected activity, suffered an
adverse employment action, and that there was a causal connection between her
engaging in the protected activity and the adverse employment action. This
showing creates a presumption of retaliation, which the defendant may rebut by
articulating a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the adverse employment
action. If the defendant provides such an explanation, the presumption of
retaliation dissipates, and the plaintiff must prove that the desire to retaliate was
the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.

Id.
a. Prima Facie Case
“To make out a prima facie case of retaliation [under Title VII], a plaintiff must make
four showings: that (1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) her employer was aware of this
activity; (3) the employer took adverse employment action against her; and (4) a causal

connection exists between the alleged adverse action and the protected activity.” Summa v.
Hofstra Univ., 708 F.3d 115, 125 (2d Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff offers evidence that she engaged in protected activity, namely complaining to
Femia about pay discrimination in the fall of 2020. Plaintiff also offers evidence that she
repeatedly complained to Femia about a male physician, alleging misogyny and racism, through
November 2020. Because Plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim is pleaded against the NYU
Defendants, these complaints to Femia suffice to establish that Defendants were aware of her
activity. See Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834, 844 (2d Cir. 2013) (“[A] plaintiff
may rely on general corporate knowledge of her protected activity to establish the knowledge
prong of the prima facie case.”). Plaintiff’s employment was terminated, which qualifies as an

adverse employment action.
As to the causal connection, “Title VII retaliation claims require proof that the desire to
retaliate was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action.” Lively v. WAFRA Inv.
Adv. Grp., 6 F.4th 293, 304 (2d Cir. 2021). A causal connection “can be established indirectly
by showing that the adverse action followed soon after the protected activity.” Myers v. Doherty,
No. 21 Civ. 3012, 2022 WL 4477050, at *2 (2d Cir. Sept. 27, 2022). Here, Plaintiff offers
sufficient evidence to support a finding of causal connection, namely that within one month of
her complaint to Femia about a male physician’s behavior and within a few months of
complaints to Femia about pay disparities, Femia and others terminated her. Plaintiff offers
evidence of a series of complaints she made regarding discrimination in the Department over a
period of years, including that a female physician was not advancing at NYU and “if it was a
man it wouldn’t be happening.” That Plaintiff’s complaints were long-running does not prevent
a causal inference; Plaintiff’s evidence, if credited, indicates repeated complaints to her

supervisors. A reasonable jury could conclude that the issues with the Patient’s care provided an
opportunity to retaliate against Plaintiff for that protected activity. See Espinal v. Goord, 558
F.3d 119, 129 (2d Cir. 2009) (“It is plausible that the [defendants] waited to exact their
retaliation at an opportune time.”) (First Amendment retaliation).
Defendants’ argument regarding the Patient’s care as an intervening causal event fails. In
Title VII cases, “significant intervening events” between protected activity and an adverse
employment action may rebut any inference of causation, including employment-related
misconduct by a plaintiff. See Gubitosi v. Kapica, 154 F.3d 30, 33 (2d Cir. 1998) (granting
summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity to an employer on a First Amendment
retaliation claim because the plaintiff, a police officer, “disobeyed [an] order[,] . . . lied about it

in the post-offense interview, and gave a false written statement about it”). However, here,
evidence that other physicians in the Department engaged in similar documentation practices as
Plaintiff did undercuts Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff’s conduct was an intervening event,
rather than an opportunity to retaliate against her. On the record as a whole, Plaintiff has
provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case.
b. Pretext and Retaliatory Causation
Having established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Defendants to articulate a
legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for Plaintiff’s termination. See Summa, 708 F.3d at 125.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff falsified a patient record, which provides a basis for her firing.
“If the employer demonstrates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, then the burden shifts
back to the plaintiff to establish, through either direct or circumstantial evidence, that the
employer’s action was, in fact, motivated by discriminatory retaliation.” Id.
Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that discriminatory

retaliation was a but-for cause of her termination -- in other words, that but for her complaints
about misogyny and racism, she would have been disciplined with something less than
termination. First, as discussed, a question of fact exists about whether other physicians engaged
in the same practice for which Plaintiff was allegedly terminated, and about how other
physicians were disciplined (or not) for documentation issues. Plaintiff also offers evidence that,
after her termination, Femia said to Brotman in an email that he had removed or was removing
two “disruptive” faculty members “from leadership positions.” Although Defendants argue that
Femia was referring to two male physicians and not to Plaintiff, a reasonable jury could construe
this evidence as referring to Plaintiff and her repeated complaints about gender discrimination,
and thus probative of retaliatory intent. Finally, as discussed, Plaintiff offers evidence of a series

of complaints she made, including just before her termination. This supports a finding that “the
adverse action occurred at the first actual opportunity to retaliate.” Summa, 708 F.3d at 128.
Defendants note correctly that “[t]emporal proximity between a protected complaint and
an adverse employment action is insufficient to satisfy [a] plaintiff’s burden to bring forward
some evidence of pretext.” Chen v. City Univ. of N.Y., 805 F.3d 59, 72 (2d Cir. 2015).
However, here, Plaintiff does not rely on temporal proximity alone in contrast to the Plaintiff in
Chen. Id.at 73 (noting that the plaintiff did not introduce comparator evidence “or some other
evidence suggesting that the college acted on retaliatory motives”).
Because a reasonable jury could credit Plaintiff’s evidence that she would not have been
terminated had she not made complaints regarding activity prohibited under Title VII, summary
judgment is denied on the Title VII retaliation claim.
2. NYSHRL, NYCHRL, NYLL and EPA Claims
The evaluation of retaliation claims for summary judgment under the EPA and NYLL

mirrors that under Title VII, and under the NYCHRL and NYSHRL is less demanding of
plaintiffs than under Title VII. The EPA makes it unlawful to “discriminate against any
employee because such employee has filed any complaint . . . under or related to this chapter,”
which includes the equal pay requirement of 29 U.S.C. § 206(d). See 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3).
Retaliation claims under the EPA are governed by the three-part McDonnell Douglas inquiry.
Mullins v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 47, 53 (2d Cir. 2010); accord Robinson v. De Niro, No. 19
Civ. 9156, 2023 WL 4862772, at *21-22 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2023).
Under the NYLL, “[n]o employer . . . shall discharge . . . any employee . . . because such
employee has made a complaint to his or her employer . . . that the employer has engaged in
conduct that the employee, reasonably and good faith, believes violates [New York labor law].”

N.Y. Lab. Law § 215(1). Retaliation claims under the NYLL are “reviewed under the burden-
shifting approach of McDonnell Douglas” and a standard that parallels the standard for
retaliation claims brought under Title VII. Fox v. Starbucks Corp., No. 21 Civ. 2531, 2023 WL
407493, at *1 & n.1 (2d Cir. Jan. 26, 2023).
The NYSHRL makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer “to discharge,
expel or otherwise discriminate against any person because . . . she has opposed any practices
forbidden under this article.” N.Y. Exec. § 296(1)(e). The NYCHRL similarly makes it an
unlawful discriminatory practice “to retaliate or discriminate in any manner against any person
because such person has . . . opposed any practice forbidden under this chapter[.]” N.Y.C.
Admin. Code § 8-107(7). “[T]o prevail on a retaliation claim under the NYCHRL, the plaintiff
must show that she took an action opposing her employer’s discrimination . . . and that, as a
result, the employer engaged in conduct that was reasonably likely to deter a person from
engaging in such action.” Mihalik, 715 F.3d at 112. For claims such as Plaintiff’s, which

accrued after October 11, 2019, “the standard for NYSHRL [retaliation claims] aligns with the
NYCHRL standard.” Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P., 2022 WL 3447987, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 17,
2022) reconsideration granted on other grounds by Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P., 2023 WL
4744183 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2023).
Plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence to preclude summary judgment on her federal
retaliation claim. The standard for retaliation claims under the NYSHRL, the NYCHRL, the
NYLL and the EPA either mirrors or is more generous to employees than that under Title VII.
For the reasons discussed regarding Plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim, summary judgment is
denied with respect to Plaintiff’s state, city and EPA retaliation claims as asserted against the
NYU Defendants.

Plaintiff also brings retaliation claims against the Individual Defendants related to her
termination. For the reasons discussed with respect to the discrimination claims, Plaintiff has not
proffered sufficient evidence that Abramson, Brotman or Francois were responsible for her
termination. Regarding Grossman, Plaintiff has not provided evidence that Grossman was aware
of her complaints about discrimination. Plaintiff argues that knowledge can be imputed to him
under the general corporate knowledge doctrine. However, this doctrine is limited to corporate
entities; Plaintiff must show the individual Defendants “had personal knowledge of [her]
protected activity.” Cardwell v. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, No. 19 Civ. 10256, 2023 WL
2049800, at *26 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2023) (collecting cases). Plaintiff further argues that
Grossman’s involvement in her termination is sufficient to preclude summary judgment. This
argument fails because, even if Grossman was personally involved in her termination, without
any evidence of his knowledge of the basis for any alleged retaliation, Grossman cannot be
liable. Regarding Femia, it is uncontested that he was involved in Plaintiff’s termination.

Plaintiff also offers evidence that he claims to have removed “disruptive” faculty members,
which, as discussed above, a jury could reasonably interpret as referring to Plaintiff.
Accordingly, summary judgment is granted to the Individual Defendants (except Femia) on the
retaliation claims brought under state and city law.
As pleaded in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), the Ninth Cause of Action alleges
Plaintiff “has been deprived of compensation” in retaliation. This is construed to allege
retaliatory conduct in the form of pay discrimination, in addition to Plaintiff’s termination.
Plaintiff has not provided evidence that her complaints about pay-based discrimination caused
her to be paid less. Summary judgment is granted on this cause of action to the extent it alleges
that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by reducing her pay. Summary judgment is denied on

this cause of action to the extent it alleges that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by
terminating her employment.
C. Pay Disparity Claims (Claims 8 and 10 through 12)
Plaintiff brings claims under the EPA, NYLL, NYCHRL and NYSHRL against the NYU
Defendants and Grossman, Brotman and Femia, alleging sex-based pay discrimination on the
basis of her opposition to differential pay. Summary judgment is granted to Defendants on all of
the pay discrimination claims.
“[T]o prove a violation of the EPA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the employer
pays different wages to employees of the opposite sex; (2) the employees perform equal work on
jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and (3) the jobs are performed under similar
working conditions.” EEOC v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 768 F.3d 247, 254-55 (2d Cir. 2014);
accord Black v. Buffalo Meat Serv., Inc., No. 21 Civ. 1468, 2022 WL 2902693, at *3 (2d Cir.
July 22, 2022) (summary order). “To satisfy this standard, a plaintiff must establish that the jobs
compared entail common duties or content, and do not simply overlap in titles or classifications.”

EEOC, 768 F.3d at 255; accord Black, 2022 WL 2902693, at *3. “[A] successful EPA claim
depends on the comparison of actual job content; broad generalizations drawn from job titles,
classifications, or divisions, and conclusory assertions of sex discrimination, cannot suffice.”
EEOC, 768 F.3d at 256. “An equal pay claim under New York Labor Law § 194 is analyzed
under the same standards applicable to the federal Equal Pay Act.” Wu v. Good Samaritan Hosp.
Med. Ctr., 815 F. App’x 575, 580 n.5 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order).
NYCHRL and NYSHRL pay discrimination claims, unlike EPA claims, do not require a
plaintiff to show she performed equal work for unequal pay; instead “any form of sex-based
compensation discrimination” gives rise to a claim. Torre v. Charter Comm’ns, Inc., 493 F.
Supp. 3d 276, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (NYCHRL); see also Xanthakos v. City Univ. of N.Y., No. 17

Civ. 9829, 2020 WL 5026930, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2020) (applying the same standard to
pay discrimination claims brought under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL). Nevertheless, Plaintiff
relies on the same argument of unequal pay for equal work in support of all of her pay
discrimination claims.
Summary judgment is granted to Defendants on all of the disparate pay claims because
Plaintiff has not provided evidence that she and her alleged comparators performed equal work
on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Plaintiff’s alleged comparators are other
Vice Chairs. The Second Circuit has made clear that job titles alone are insufficient to prove
equivalent work. EEOC, 768 F.3d at 256. The record shows that the Vice Chairs had unique
work responsibilities; for example, as the Vice Chair of Academic Affairs and Education
Innovation, Plaintiff was responsible for “any . . . initiative that involved education,” while her
alleged comparators both held the title of Vice Chair of Clinical Operations, a position that
oversees 500,000 patient visits and ensuring best practices and safety protocols. Whether two

positions are substantially equivalent for purposes of the EPA and NYLL is generally a question
of fact. Jamilik v. Yale Univ., 362 F. App’x 148, 150 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order). However,
at summary judgment, Plaintiff must “adduce[] evidence that she and alleged male comparators
had substantially similar job duties” to create a genuine dispute of material fact. Black, 2022 WL
2902693, at *3. Instead, Plaintiff does not dispute that “[t]he ED Vice Chairs did not have the
same responsibilities for clinical work, research and/or leadership roles.” Summary judgment is
granted to Defendants on Plaintiff’s disparate pay claims.
D. Defamation (Claim 13)
Plaintiff brings a defamation claim against all Defendants for the Individual Defendants’
statements about Plaintiff’s treatment of the Patient. Summary judgment is granted to
Defendants on this claim.

As a threshold matter, New York law applies to Plaintiff’s defamation claim. The parties
cite New York law and federal cases applying New York law in their motion papers and such
implied consent is sufficient to establish the applicable choice of law. See In re Snyder, 939 F.3d
92, 100 n.2 (2d Cir. 2019) (“[I]mplied consent is sufficient to establish the applicable choice of
law.”).
“[A] defamation plaintiff must establish five elements: (1) a written defamatory statement
of and concerning the plaintiff, (2) publication to a third party, (3) fault, (4) falsity of the
defamatory statement, and (5) special damages or per se actionability.” Palin v. N.Y. Times Co.,
940 F.3d 804, 809 (2d Cir. 2019) (New York law). Under New York law, a “qualified[]
privilege extends to a communication made by one person to another upon a subject in which
both have an interest.” Liberman v. Gelstein, 605 N.E.2d 344, 349 (N.Y. 1992); accord Hodges
v. Lutwin, No. 22 Civ. 974, 2023 WL 3362836, at *2 (2d Cir. May 11, 2023). “A qualified
privilege may be overcome by a showing either of ‘actual’ malice (i.e., knowledge of the

statement’s falsity or reckless disregard as to whether it was false) or of common-law malice.”
Chandok v. Klessig, 632 F.3d 803, 815 (2d Cir. 2011) (New York law). To overcome the
qualified privilege on the basis of common law malice, “[a] plaintiff[] must plausibly allege that
malice was the sole reason the defamatory statements were made.” Hodges, 2023 WL 3362836,
at *3.
The privilege applies to the statements at issue. Plaintiff alleges the following
defamatory statements: Brotman’s republication of the letter sent by the Patient regarding her
treatment at NYU to a resident; the statements of Brotman, Francois, Abramson and Femia in
meetings with other NYU staff that Plaintiff almost killed a patient and committed criminal
fraud; and Grossman’s statement regarding an attending physician’s missed diagnoses to

residents at their orientation. Plaintiff alleges Grossman’s statement would have been
understood to refer to her. All of these statements were made by physicians at NYU to other
NYU staff, and all of these statements concern Plaintiff’s treatment of the Patient and
documentation of her visit in the course of her employment at NYU. In Buckley v. Litman, the
New York Court of Appeals found that the common interest privilege applies to statements made
by one physician to another, when those physicians had been associated with the same family
practice and the statements “relat[ed] to patient care and in particular to the handling of patient
files maintained in the course of the practice of family medicine.” 443 N.E.2d 469, 470-71 (N.Y.
1982); see also Dillon v. City of New York, 704 N.Y.S.2d 1, 7 (1st Dep’t 1999) (“[When]
statements are made about an employee in an employment context . . . they are qualifiedly
privileged as having been made by one person to another upon a subject in which they have a
common interest.”). Plaintiff also implicitly concedes that the privilege applies, arguing in her
motion papers that fact issues “would defeat[] any qualified privilege.”

The qualified privilege protects Defendants’ statements, and Plaintiff has not overcome
the privilege with evidence of actual malice or common law malice. Plaintiff argues that Femia
acted with actual malice – i.e., with knowledge or reckless disregard of a statement’s falsity –
when he said that Plaintiff’s conduct amounted to fraud, when he otherwise described her
conduct as an “error.” However, in context, Femia’s statement that Plaintiff made an error refers
to Plaintiff’s failure to examine the Patient, and not what she wrote in the chart. “She made an
error. She’s sick and embarrassed about it. She was sitting within 5 feet of the patient . . . . She
admits she did not do an independent exam and knows that was wrong.”
Plaintiff also argues that when Grossman told the residents that an attending physician
(Plaintiff) had missed the diagnoses of sepsis and pyelonephritis, he and the other Defendants

knew his statement was not true. However, the evidence Plaintiff cites is inapposite. The RCA
Summary states that the Patient’s vital signs “did not rise to the level of . . . triggering the
preprogrammed threshold . . . for sepsis” but “a more comprehensive look at her vital signs in
totality may have given the ED team pause to consider sepsis nonetheless.” This supports, rather
than undercuts, the idea that Defendants believed that sepsis was a missed diagnosis. Similarly,
the Patient’s letter states that the Patient “wanted to prompt [Ciardiello] to . . . rework what, in
hindsight, I assume was a fixed diagnosis in her head.” Although Ciardiello testified that she and
Plaintiff changed the Patient’s antibiotics to treat pyelonephritis, Plaintiff does not offer any
evidence that Grossman was aware of this fact, and therefore was aware that his statement that
Plaintiff missed pyelonephritis was false at the time he made it.
As to common law malice, Plaintiff must show “spite or ill will was the one and only
cause for the publication.” Chandok, 632 F.3d at 815 (cleaned up). Plaintiff has not done so;

viewing the record as a whole, there is no evidence that Defendants’ statements were motivated
solely by spite, and without any purpose of preventing future issues with patient care and
documentation.
Plaintiff has not proffered evidence from which a jury could conclude that any of
Defendants’ statements were made with either type of malice necessary to defeat the qualified
privilege. Summary judgment is granted to all Defendants on the defamation claim.
E. Breach of Contract (Claim 14)
Plaintiff’s final claim alleges that the NYU Defendants, Grossman, Brotman and Femia
breached Plaintiff’s employment contract with NYU. The breach of contract claim as alleged in
the FAC rests on three theories: (1) that Plaintiff was terminated in violation of her employment
contract, implying that she was not an at-will employee, (2) that Defendants engaged in

discriminatory and retaliatory misconduct in violation of university policies incorporated into
Plaintiff’s contract and (3) that she was not provided the requisite six-months’ notice of
termination. Because Plaintiff abandoned the first and third theories in her opposition to
summary judgment, they are no longer in the case. See Jackson v. Fed. Express, 766 F.3d 189,
196 (2d Cir. 2014) (“Where abandonment by a counseled party is not explicit but such an
inference may be fairly drawn from the papers and circumstances viewed as a whole, district
courts may conclude that abandonment was intended.”); accord Colbert v. Rio Tinto PLC, 824 F.
App’x 5, 11 (2d Cir. 2020) (summary order) (similar). Summary judgment is granted to
Defendants on this claim as to the remaining second theory.
As with the defamation claim, the parties rely on New York law in their discussion of the
breach of contract claim. Accordingly, New York law applies. See In re Snyder, 939 F.3d at
100 n.2.
The FAC alleges Plaintiff’s employment contract incorporates the Faculty Handbook,

which in turn incorporates NYU policies including the Code of Ethical Conduct and a non-
discrimination and anti-harassment policy. In her opposition to the motion for summary
judgment, Plaintiff argues something slightly different, namely that NYU’s Code of Ethics
creates a cause of action for breach of contract, because New York law at times recognizes such
policies can be binding contracts. Either way, the Code states “[t]his Code does not form a
contract.” This distinguishes it from the policies at issue in O’Neill v. New York Univ., upon
which Plaintiff relies, which did not include such a disclaimer. 944 N.Y.S.2d 503, 510 (1st
Dep’t 2012). The New York Court of Appeals has warned that “[r]outinely issued employee
manuals, handbooks and policy statements should not lightly be converted into binding
employment agreements” and that “conspicuous disclaiming language . . . prevents the creation

of a contract.” Lobosco v. N.Y. Tel. Co./NYNEX, 751 N.E.2d 462, 465 (N.Y. 2001). Summary
judgment is granted to the Defendants on the breach of contract claim.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART. In the interest of clarity, summary judgment is granted to
Defendants on the following claims:
• the gender discrimination claims against Abramson, Brotman and Francois (Claims 3
and 5);
e the retaliation claims against Abramson, Brotman, Francois and Grossman (Claims 4, 6, 7
and 9) and the EPA retaliation claim to the extent based on retaliatory diminished pay
(Claim 9);
e the pay disparity claims (Claims 8, 10, 11 and 12)
e the defamation claim (Claim 13) and
e the breach of contract claim (Claim 14).
Summary judgment is denied on the following claims, which survive:
e the Title VII claims against the NYU Defendants for gender discrimination and
retaliation (Claims 1 and 2);
e the NYSHRL and NYCHRL gender discrimination claims against the NYU Defendants,
Femia and Grossman (Claims 3 and 5) and
e the NYSHRL, NYCHRL, NYLL and EPA retaliation claims based on retaliatory firing
against the NYU Defendants and Femia (Claims 4, 6, 7 and 9).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 77.
Dated: September 7, 2023
New York, New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10354147. Public record. Not legal advice.