Reddington v. Staten Island University Hospital, No. 06-4152 (2d Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 14, 2007.
Download PDF
06-4152-cv, 06-4179-cv Reddington v. Staten Island University Hospital UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 1 2 3 August Term 2007 4 5 6 7 (Argued: October 11, 2007 Decided: September 22, 2008) 8 Docket Nos. 06-4152-cv(L), 06-4179-cv(XAP) 9 10 _____________________________________ 11 12 CARMEL REDDINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 13 14 15 -v.- 16 17 STATEN ISLAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL and NORTH SHORE LONG ISLAND JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. _____________________________________ 18 19 20 21 22 23 Before: 24 KATZMANN, LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, District Judge.* 25 26 Employee brought claims against former employer for age discrimination, 27 violation of whistleblower protection law, and breach of contract. The United 28 States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, I. Leo Glasser, J., 373 29 F. Supp. 2d 177, dismissed the whistleblower and contract claims. The parties 30 agreed to dismiss the age discrimination claims with prejudice. 31 appealed the dismissal of her whistleblower and contract claims, and employer * Employee The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 cross-appealed, seeking attorneys fees. We affirmed in part and certified two 2 questions to the New York Court of Appeals, 511 F.3d 126, and the New York 3 Court of Appeals, Read, J., 11 N.Y.3d 80, answered questions. In light of the 4 answers, we affirm. JONATHAN BEHRINS, Behrins & Behrins, P.C., Staten Island, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant-CrossAppellee. 5 6 7 8 JAMES D. WILLIAMS, JR. (David O. Simon, on the brief), Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees-CrossAppellants. 9 10 11 12 13 14 LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judge: 15 Plaintiff Carmel Reddington appeals from a judgment of the United States 16 District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Glasser, J.) dismissing her 17 claims against her former employer, defendants Staten Island University 18 Hospital and North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc. (the 19 Hospital ), for termination in violation of New York s whistleblower protection 20 law and for breach of an employment contract. See Reddington v. Staten Island 21 Univ. Hosp. (Reddington I), 373 F. Supp. 2d 177 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). We set forth 22 the underlying facts and procedural history in Reddington v. Staten Island 23 University Hospital (Reddington II), 511 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2007). In Reddington 24 II, we affirmed the judgment of the district court insofar as it dismissed 25 Reddington s claim for breach of contract, id. at 137-38, and we certified to the 2 1 New York Court of Appeals the following two questions related to the whistle- 2 blower law: (1) Does the institution of a time-barred claim pursuant to New 3 York Labor Law § 740 simultaneously with a claim pursuant to New York Labor 4 Law § 741 trigger section 740(7) s waiver provision and thereby bar the section 5 741 claim, even if the section 740 claim is subsequently withdrawn? ; (2) Does 6 the definition of employee in New York Labor Law § 741 encompass an 7 individual who does not render medical treatment, and under what circum- 8 stances? Id. at 136. The Court of Appeals accepted certification, Reddington 9 v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp. (Reddington III), 9 N.Y.3d 1020, 881 N.E.2d 214, 10 851 N.Y.S.2d 118 (2008), and answered both questions in the negative, 11 Reddington v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp. (Reddington IV), 11 N.Y.3d 80 (2008). 12 As we explain, the Court of Appeals s answers to the certified questions require 13 us to affirm the judgment of the district court. 14 The district court determined that, by instituting an action under section 15 740 of the New York Labor Law, Reddington triggered the claim-waiver 16 provision of section 740(7) and thereby waived the claim under section 741 that 17 she asserted in her amended complaint. Observing that section 741 contem- 18 plates enforcement through the private right of action established in section 19 740(4), the Court of Appeals determined that no election of remedies is 20 implicated when sections 741 and 740 are pleaded together, or section 741 is 3 1 pleaded after a plaintiff has instituted a section 740 claim, because section 741 2 provides no independent remedy. Id. at 89. Accordingly, although Reddington 3 triggered section 740(7) s waiver by instituting an action under section 740, cf. 4 Reddington II, 511 F.3d at 133-34, Reddington did not waive her section 741 5 claim because that claim does not fall within the scope of the waiver, cf. id. at 6 134-35. 7 Nonetheless, we must affirm the dismissal of her section 741 claim 8 because section 741 applies only to a[] person who performs health care 9 services. N.Y. Lab. Law § 741(1)(a). As Reddington IV makes clear, section 10 741 . . . is meant to safeguard only those employees who are qualified by virtue 11 of training and/or experience to make knowledgeable judgments as to the quality 12 of patient care, and whose jobs require them to make these judgments. 11 13 N.Y.3d at 93. The statute, therefore, applies to employees who actually supply 14 health care services, but does not apply to employees who merely . . . 15 coordinate with those who do. Id. at 91. As we described in our prior opinion, 16 Reddington s complaint alleges that she coordinated and developed certain 17 services for the Hospital s patients, took charge of patient satisfaction 18 questionnaires, and managed and trained personnel who provided translation 19 assistance, but it does not allege that she supplied any treatment. Reddington 20 II, 511 F.3d at 135. According to the definition of health care services as 4 1 explained in Reddington IV, these allegations are insufficient to establish that 2 Reddington was an employee within the meaning of section 741(1)(a). Because 3 the remedies available for violations of section 741 are available only to health 4 care employees, see N.Y. Lab. Law § 740(4)(d), we affirm the district court s 5 dismissal of Reddington s section 741 claim. 6 Finally, we consider the Hospital s cross-appeal, in which it argues that it 7 is entitled to attorneys fees under section 740(6). The district court declined to 8 award attorneys fees because Reddington withdrew her section 740 claim at an 9 early stage of the litigation. See Reddington I, 373 F. Supp. 2d at 189 (denying 10 the Hospital s request for attorneys fees because Reddington served her 11 amended complaint before defendants filed an answer to the original complaint 12 containing the § 740 claim and because there ha[d] been no discovery 13 conducted in this litigation to date ). Section 740, however, requires the court 14 to determine whether an action brought by an employee under this section was 15 without basis in law or in fact, N.Y. Lab. Law § 740(6), and thus the district 16 court appears to have employed an erroneous legal standard. Nevertheless, in 17 view of the decision that Reddington did not waive her claim under section 741 18 because that claim is enforced pursuant to section 740(4), and in light of the 19 previously unclear scope of section 741 s definition of employee, we are of the 20 opinion that Reddington s action under this section construed as a whole 5 1 was nonfrivolous. As a matter of law, therefore, the Hospital is not entitled to 2 attorneys fees. 3 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court s dismissal of 4 Reddington s claims under section 741, and we also affirm the district court s 5 refusal to award attorneys fees to the Hospital. We thank the New York Court 6 of Appeals for its assistance in construing these provisions of New York law. 6
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
