From JASMINE BROWN, Plaintiff, v. MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER, et al., Defendants., 2019 WL 6878214 (S.D.N.Y., 2019):
In my Opinion & Order, I observed that Defendant offered two non-discriminatory reasons “for Plaintiff’s termination: (1) Plaintiff’s act of working shifts during the leave she had been granted on December 5 and 6, 2013; and (2) Plaintiff’s failure to punch out when she left her shift on December 6, 2013.” (Doc. 102, at 16.) Defendant now argues that when denying its motion for summary judgment I “overlooked the proffered evidence of the actual reason for Plaintiff’s termination, and misstated those reasons [sic] in [my] analysis.” (Doc. 103, at 16.) Reexamining Defendant’s memorandum of law in support of its motion for summary judgment, I find that Defendant is incorrect.
When articulating the alleged non-discriminatory reasons for Plaintiff’s termination, Defendant’s memorandum of law unambiguously stated the following:
Plaintiff’s act of working shifts elsewhere during her requested bereavement period, standing alone, constitutes a terminable offense. (56.1 Stmnt. ¶ 41.) But Plaintiff also failed to punch out timely when she left her shift on December 6, causing further expense to the department. This too constituted a violation of Montefiore policy. (Policy Number VII-I, attached to Malley Decl. as Exhibit O (“Dishonesty, including falsification of records, reports, documents or time/attendance records.”)
(Doc. 90, at 20.)
Contrary to Defendant’s motion, these are the exact proffered reasons for Plaintiff’s termination that I analyzed in my Opinion & Order. Defendant is wrong to now argue that I should have read more into its memorandum than the quoted language posits, particularly when the burden was on Defendant to proffer legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the adverse employment action. See Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456, 468–69 (2d Cir. 2001). Such an argument is not the proper subject of a motion for reconsideration.