Takeaway: This case serves as a reminder to employers of the importance of progressive discipline. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff yelled in several meetings, and the defendants told the court that discipline for such behavior would start at a suspension at the very least. Yet no progressive discipline was exerted by the defendants as required by the collective bargaining agreement. Further, the defendants' argument that the plaintiff's workplace complaints "were actually insubordinate and disruptive conduct" clearly falling outside the bounds of protected activity wasn't introduced until replying to the plaintiff's arguments against summary judgment. The court refused to consider these arguments because they were not timely raised. If properly implemented in a timely fashion, progressive discipline of the plaintiff could have fended off the inference of retaliatory motivation.
Procedural deviations during a hospital employee's suspension and disciplinary hearing, including the lack of progressive discipline required by a collective bargaining agreement, could support an inference of retaliatory motivation related to her ongoing treatment for cancer, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York held.
The plaintiff was hired by the hospital as a patient access representative in October 2012 and became a patient account representative (PAR) float in 2013. She was diagnosed with cancer in 2016 and began chemotherapy. The hospital granted two Family...
In October 2026, a rumor spread that U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico, a Texas Democrat, had received treatment at a mental health care facility in Ohio. The claim erupted after Talarico, a s...