Preview
FILED:
FILED : KINGS
KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 05/27/2018
01/16/2018 03:05
10 :19 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 510225/2017
510225/2017
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 91
43 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 05/27/2018
01/16/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
HADAS GOLDFARB, Index No. 510225/17
Plaintiff, THE HOSPITAL'S
RESPONSES AND
vs. OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF
INTERROGATORIES
THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN
HOSPITAL and CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendants.
Pursuant to Sections 3133, 3131, and 3101 of the New York Civil Practice
Law and Rules ("CPLR"), Defendant The New York and Presbyterian Hospital
("Defendant" "Hospital" Interrogatories"
or "Hospital"), responds below to "Plaintiff's First Set of
("Interrogatories"
("Interrogatories"). The responses set forth herein are made without waiving the
following:
1. The Hospital's right to object on the grounds of competency,
privilege, relevancy, materiality, or any other proper ground to the use of any information
or documents that may be produced in response to these Interrogatories, for any purpose,
in whole or in part, in any subsequent step or proceeding in this action or in any other
action.
2. The Hospital's right to object, on any and all grounds at any time, to
other requests or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of
the Interrogatories responded to herein.
3. The Hospital's right at any time to supplement, revise, correct, or
clarify any of the responses or objections to these Interrogatories.
FILED:
FILED : KINGS
KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 05/27/2018
01/16/2018 03:05
10 :19 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 510225/2017
510225/2017
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 91
43 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 05/27/2018
01/16/2018
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
1. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
seek information and/or documents that are not relevant to any claim or defense in this
action.
2. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
are overbroad, excessive, and/or impose an undue burden upon the Hospital.
3. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
are vague, ambiguous, or undefined. For example, Plaintiff uses the references "FDNY
2100-o7" 3.1"
EMS OGP and "Rule repeatedly without defining them. The Hospital infers
2100-o7"
that "FDNY EMS OGP 2100-07 is meant to refer to FDNY's EMS OGP 200-07, "Voluntary
Uniforms,"
Hospital Ambulance Personnel Section 3.1 because there have been no
allegations or claims in this action to date regarding FDNY EMS OGP 2100-07 and
3.1"
responds accordingly. Additionally, the Hospital infers that "Rule refers to FDNY's
Uniforms,"
EMS OGP 200-o7, "Voluntary Hospital Ambulance Personnel Section 3.1 and
responds accordingly.
4. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
seek information and/or documents that are protected from disclosure the attorney-
by
client privilege, the work product doctrine or any other recognized privilege against
disclosure. Inadvertent identification or production of any such document or information
shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege with respect to the subject matter thereof or
the information contained therein, and shall not waive the Hospital's right to object to the
use of any document or the information contained therein during any subsequent
proceeding.
2
FILED:
FILED : KINGS
KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 05/27/2018
01/16/2018 03:05
10 :19 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 510225/2017
510225/2017
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 91
43 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 05/27/2018
01/16/2018
5. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek
information and/or documents containing confidential and/or privileged personal medical
information or personnel information that are privileged from disclosure, under the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, under a Doctor/Patient Privilege,
Peer-Review Privilege, or under any other patient-related privacy laws, doctrines or
privileges recognized by law, including the CPLR. The Hospital does not waive, and hereby
preserves, all such privileges and privacy protections.
6. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
seek information and/or documents concerning matters outside the applicable limitations
period or other appropriate period for discovery.
7. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
seek information and/or documents that are not within the possession, custody, or control
of the Hospital.
8. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
seek information and/or documents more appropriately sought via depositions.
9. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they
do not comply with Sections 3131 and 3101 of the CPLR.
10. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that
Plaintiff s Instructions exceed the scope of what is required under the CPLR.
These General Objections are incorporated by reference into each of the
Hospital's responses as though fully set forth therein.
3
FILED:
FILED : KINGS
KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 05/27/2018
01/16/2018 03:05
10 :19 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 510225/2017
510225/2017
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 91
43 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 05/27/2018
01/16/2018
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES
Interrogatory No. 1:
Identify each instance where Defendant Hospital spoke to someone at Defendant
City (or FDNY) regarding Plaintiff and for each identified instance provide the
following:
(a) the date of each instance;
(b) the time of each instance;
(c) the individual that spoke with the Defendant Hospital during each
instance;
(d) each individual who witnessed each identified instance; and
(e) what was said by said individual and Defendant Hospital during each
instance; and
(f) job title of said individual
iitol'
Response to Interrogatory No. 1:
The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the ground that it is overly broad
instance"
in scope in that it asks for "each regarding plaintiff Hadas Goldfarb
("
("Plaintiff") regardless of whether the conversation that took place between the Hospital
"City"
and the City of New York (the "City") or the Fire Department of New York ("FDNY") has
any relevance to this action or to any of the allegations in the Amended Complaint. The
"spoke"
Hospital further objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the ground that is vague and
"spoke"
ambiguous because it is undefined. Therefore, the Hospital will be defining to
refer to verbal communications between individuals. Subject to and without waiver of
these specific objections and the General Objections, the Hospital identifies the
following instances where personnel from the Hospital spoke with personnel employed
by either the City or the FDNY regarding Plaintiff:
4
FILED:
FILED : KINGS
KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 05/27/2018
01/16/2018 03:05
10 :19 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 510225/2017
510225/2017
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 91
43 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 05/27/2018
01/16/2018
In or around November 2015, Michael Koppel, manager of paramedic services
operations at the Hospital's Department of Emergency Medical Services, spoke to
Captain Cheryl Middleton from FDNY EMS Operations regarding Plaintiff's request for
an exemption from the FDNY's EMSC OGP 200-o7, "Voluntary Hospital Ambulance
Uniforms,"
Personnel section 3.1 (hereinafter "EMSC OGP 200-o7 Section 3.1").
Captain Middleton informed Mr. Koppel that the FDNY would not grant an exemption.
Captain Middleton proceeded to explain that the FDNY rule against wearing skirts was
due to concerns about worker mobility and safety in emergency, time-sensitive
situations.
On or around December 14, 2015, Mr. Koppel spoke to Harold Wagner, who then
held the title of EMT and was assigned to the FDNY operations division.
Interrogatory No. 2:
Identify each instance where Defendant Hospital spoke to Plaintiff and for each
identified instance provide the following:
(a) the date of each instance;
(b) the time of each instance;
(c) the individual that spoke with Plaintiff during each instance;
(d) each individual who witnessed each identified instance; and
(e) what was said by said individual during each instance; and
(f) job title of said individual
Response to Interrogatory No. 2:
The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the ground that it is overly broad
instance"
in scope in that it asks for "each anyone at the Hospital spoke with Plaintiff
regardless of whether the conversation that took place between the Hospital and
Plaintiff has any relevance to this action or to any of the allegations in the Amended
5
FILED:
FILED : KINGS
KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 05/27/2018
01/16/2018 03:05
10 :19 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 510225/2017
510225/2017
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 91
43 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 05/27/2018
01/16/2018
Complaint. The Hospital further objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the ground that
"spoke"
is vague and ambiguous because itis undefined. Therefore, the Hospital will be
"spoke"
defining to mean verbal communications between individuals. Subject to and
without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, the Hospital
identifies the following instances it is currently aware of where someone from the
Hospital spoke with Plaintiff and the discussion is related to the allegations in the
Amended Complaint:
In or around November and/or December 2015, Mr. Koppel spoke with Plaintiff
on various occasions to discuss Plaintiff's possible employment at the Hospital as an
Emergency Paramedic at the Hospital's Department of Emergency Management
Department"
Services (the "EMS Department") and safety concerns regarding her request to wear a
skirt as part of her paramedic uniform.
On or around November 24, 2015, Plaintiff advised Mr. Koppel that, when she
was on duty as a paramedic, she wanted to wear a skirt as part of her paramedic uniform
instead of pants for what she described as religious reasons. Mr. Koppel explained to
Plaintiff that she had been hired as an Paramedic for EMS Department in-
Emergency
"911"
service system ambulances. In either that conversation or subsequent
conversations, Plaintiff was advised that she was required to abide by all FDNY rules,
regulations, and policies, including FDNY's policy requiring EMS personnel to wear
pants. He advised Plaintiff that he would ask the FDNY whether it would grant an
exemption. Plaintiff inquired if there were any EMS positions that did not conform to
the FDNY dress code; Mr. Koppel explained that there were not.
On or around November 25, 2015, Mr. Koppel informed Plaintiff of his
conversation with Captain Middleton (as set forth in the Hospital's Response to
6
FILED:
FILED : KINGS
KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 05/27/2018
01/16/2018 03:05
10 :19 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 510225/2017
510225/2017
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 91
43 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 05/27/2018
01/16/2018
Interrogatory No. 1). He advised Plaintiff that he had provided Captain Middleton with
Plaintiffs telephone number and that she should expect a telephone call from Captain
Middleton. Plaintiff requested that she be transferred to an EMS position not subject to
FDNY rules. Mr. Koppel explained that no such position existed at the Hospital.
Plaintiff then asked to speak with an employee representative. Mr. Koppel provided her
with contact information for Human Resources Manager Lisa Perlman.
Upon information and belief, sometime between approximately November 25,
2015 and December 14, 2015, Plaintiff had a conversation with Ms. Perlman regarding
her request to wear a skirt.
On or around December 14, 2015, in approximately the afternoon, Mr. Koppel
and Ms. Perlman spoke with Plaintiff about whether she was willing to comply with the
FDNY's requirement that no skirts be worn by EMS workers. Plaintiff indicated that she
would not. Mr. Koppel then informed her that her employment with the Hospital was
terminated and that there was no need for her to finish the employee orientation.
The Hospital is unable to identify any additional incidental conversations
Plaintiff may have engaged in on December 14, 2015, to the extent Plaintiff had any
additional conversations than the one set forth herein, with any other Hospital
employees while she was attending the orientation for new employees.
Interrogatory No. 3:
State whether Defendant City conveyed to Defendant Hospital that Defendant
Hospital would suffer repercussions if Defendant Hospital failed to enforce FDNY EMS
OGP 2100-o7 Rule 3.1.
Response to Interrogatory No. 3:
The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the ground that the terms
"conveyed" "repercussions"
and are vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without
7
FILED:
FILED : KINGS
KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 05/27/2018
01/16/2018 03:05
10 :19 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 510225/2017
510225/2017
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 91
43 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 05/27/2018
01/16/2018
waiver of this specific objection and the General Objections, the Hospital's
communications with the City and the FDNY did not concern any adverse consequences
to the Hospital for any alleged failure to enforce FDNY's rules because the Hospital did
not intend to violate or refuse to enforce their rules. Rather, the Hospital inquired
whether FDNY would grant an exemption to allow a skirt as part of a uniform and
whether FDNY would accept a paramedic wearing a skirt as qualified to respond to 911
calls. Upon receipt of FDNY's answer that it would not qualify a paramedic in a skirt,
the Hospital determined that Plaintiff was not qualified for the position unless she
conformed to the dress requirements.
Interrogatory No. 4:
State whether FDNY was informed that Plaintiff would be terminated by
Defendant Hospital, if FDNY would not authorize a dispensation for her to wear a skirt.
Response to Interrogatory No. 4:
The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the ground that it is vague and
"dispensation"
ambiguous because the term is undefined. Subject to and without waiver
of this specific objection and the General Objections, personnel from the Hospital did
not inform personnel at the FDNY that FDNY's decision not to authorize an exemption
to the uniform policy would result in the termination of Plaintiff's employment.
Interrogatory No. 5:
If Defendant City did convey to Defendant Hospital that Defendant Hospital
would suffer repercussion if Defendant Hospital failed to enforce Rule 3.1, identify what
were those repercussions.
Response to Interrogatory No. 5:
The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the ground that the terms
"convey" "repercussion"
and are vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiver of
8
FILED:
FILED : KINGS
KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 05/27/2018
01/16/2018 03:05
10 :19 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 510225/2017
510225/2017
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 91
43 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 05/27/2018
01/16/2018
this specific objection and the General Objections, the Hospital the Hospital directs
Plaintiff to its Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 3.
Interrogatory No. 6:
Is Defendant Hospital abiding to and enforcing Rule 3.1 required by Defendant
Hospital's contract with FDNY?
Response to Interrogatory No. 6:
Subject to and without waiver of its General Objections, the Hospital states that
its contractual obligations with FDNY require that the Hospital staff its ambulances with
qualified personnel, determined by FDNY rules, regulations and policies, and that
accordingly the Hospital must comply with FDNY's rules, regulations and policies or
receive an exemption therefrom, for any ambulance that is available for response to 911
calls. As a matter of Hospital policy, all ambulances must be available and qualified to
respond to 911 calls.
Interrogatory No. 7:
What are the repercussions that Defendant Hospital would face for failing to
enforce Rule 3.1 or for failing to abide by Rule 3.1?
Response to Interrogatory No. 7:
The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground that it is vague and
"repercussions"
ambiguous as the term is undefined and on the ground that the
interrogatory poses an incomplete and improper hypothetical. Subject to and without
waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, should the Hospital fail
to enforce EMSC OGP 200-o7 Section 3.1, itwould not be in compliance with applicable
law, would be in breach of the 911 Ambulance Agreement between the City and the
"Contract"
Hospital (the "Contract"), and the FDNY would place off service any Hospital
9
FILED:
FILED : KINGS
KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 05/27/2018
01/16/2018 03:05
10 :19 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 510225/2017
510225/2017
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 91
43 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 05/27/2018
01/16/2018
ambulances that were staffed with EMS workers not in compliance with EMSC OGP
200-o7 Section 3.1 until compliance was achieved.
Interrogatory No. 8:
What is the purpose of Rule 3.1?
Response to Interrogatory No. 8:
The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the ground that the Hospital did
not promulgate Rule 3.1 and therefore cannot provide any definitive explanation of what
"purpose"
FDNY's in promulgating the Rule was.
Interrogatory No. 9:
What types of skirts are contemplated by Rule 3.1?
Response to Interrogatory No. 9:
The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the ground that the Hospital did
not promulgate the rule and therefore cannot provide any definitive explanation of what
"contemplated."
FDNY
Interrogatory No. 10:
Would a skort be prohibited under Rule 3.1?
Response to Interrogatory No. 10:
The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the grounds that it is vague and
"skort"
ambiguous as the term are undefined and that it seeks information that is
neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. The
Hospital further objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the ground that the Hospital did not
promulgate the rule and is not the body charged with itsinterpretation.
Interrogatory No. 11:
Does Rule 3.1 contemplate or prohibit wearing a skirt over leggings or pants?
10
FILED:
FILED : KINGS
KINGS COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 05/27/2018
01/16/2018 03:05
10 :19 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 510225/2017
510225/2017
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 91
43 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 05/27/2018
01/16/2018
Response to Interrogatory No. 11:
The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 11 on the ground that the Hospital did
not promulgate the rule and therefore cannot provide any definitive explanation of what
"contemplated" "prohibits"
FDNY or under the Rule.
Interrogatory No. 12:
State whether Defendant Hospital has previously requested an dispensation
regarding Rule 3.1 from FDNY?
Response to Interrogatory No. 12:
The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 12 on the ground that it is vague and
"dispensation"
ambiguous because the term and is undefined. Subject to and without
waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, the Hospital has not
previously requested that the FDNY to grant an exception to exempt a Hospital
employee from the Rule.
Interrogatory No. 13:
What specific danger would result from an EMS worker wearing a skirt?
Response to Interrogatory No. 13:
The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 13 on the ground that it is vague,
ambiguous, and calls for inappropriate speculation based on an incomplete and
improper hypothetical.
Interrogatory No. 14:
Does Defendant Hospital have any studies or evidence regarding the safety
concerns of EMS personnel wearing a sidrt?
Response to Interrogatory No. 14:
The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 14 because it is overly broad in scope
evidence,"
Preview
FILED: FILED : KINGS KINGS COUNTY COUNTY CLERK CLERK 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 03:05 10 :19 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 510225/2017 510225/2017 PM| NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. NO. NO. 91 43 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS HADAS GOLDFARB, Index No. 510225/17 Plaintiff, THE HOSPITAL'S RESPONSES AND vs. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES THE NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL and CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants. Pursuant to Sections 3133, 3131, and 3101 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"), Defendant The New York and Presbyterian Hospital ("Defendant" "Hospital" Interrogatories" or "Hospital"), responds below to "Plaintiff's First Set of ("Interrogatories" ("Interrogatories"). The responses set forth herein are made without waiving the following: 1. The Hospital's right to object on the grounds of competency, privilege, relevancy, materiality, or any other proper ground to the use of any information or documents that may be produced in response to these Interrogatories, for any purpose, in whole or in part, in any subsequent step or proceeding in this action or in any other action. 2. The Hospital's right to object, on any and all grounds at any time, to other requests or other discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of the Interrogatories responded to herein. 3. The Hospital's right at any time to supplement, revise, correct, or clarify any of the responses or objections to these Interrogatories. FILED: FILED : KINGS KINGS COUNTY COUNTY CLERK CLERK 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 03:05 10 :19 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 510225/2017 510225/2017 PM| NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. NO. NO. 91 43 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information and/or documents that are not relevant to any claim or defense in this action. 2. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they are overbroad, excessive, and/or impose an undue burden upon the Hospital. 3. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they are vague, ambiguous, or undefined. For example, Plaintiff uses the references "FDNY 2100-o7" 3.1" EMS OGP and "Rule repeatedly without defining them. The Hospital infers 2100-o7" that "FDNY EMS OGP 2100-07 is meant to refer to FDNY's EMS OGP 200-07, "Voluntary Uniforms," Hospital Ambulance Personnel Section 3.1 because there have been no allegations or claims in this action to date regarding FDNY EMS OGP 2100-07 and 3.1" responds accordingly. Additionally, the Hospital infers that "Rule refers to FDNY's Uniforms," EMS OGP 200-o7, "Voluntary Hospital Ambulance Personnel Section 3.1 and responds accordingly. 4. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information and/or documents that are protected from disclosure the attorney- by client privilege, the work product doctrine or any other recognized privilege against disclosure. Inadvertent identification or production of any such document or information shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege with respect to the subject matter thereof or the information contained therein, and shall not waive the Hospital's right to object to the use of any document or the information contained therein during any subsequent proceeding. 2 FILED: FILED : KINGS KINGS COUNTY COUNTY CLERK CLERK 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 03:05 10 :19 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 510225/2017 510225/2017 PM| NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. NO. NO. 91 43 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 5. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent they seek information and/or documents containing confidential and/or privileged personal medical information or personnel information that are privileged from disclosure, under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, under a Doctor/Patient Privilege, Peer-Review Privilege, or under any other patient-related privacy laws, doctrines or privileges recognized by law, including the CPLR. The Hospital does not waive, and hereby preserves, all such privileges and privacy protections. 6. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information and/or documents concerning matters outside the applicable limitations period or other appropriate period for discovery. 7. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information and/or documents that are not within the possession, custody, or control of the Hospital. 8. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information and/or documents more appropriately sought via depositions. 9. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they do not comply with Sections 3131 and 3101 of the CPLR. 10. The Hospital objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that Plaintiff s Instructions exceed the scope of what is required under the CPLR. These General Objections are incorporated by reference into each of the Hospital's responses as though fully set forth therein. 3 FILED: FILED : KINGS KINGS COUNTY COUNTY CLERK CLERK 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 03:05 10 :19 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 510225/2017 510225/2017 PM| NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. NO. NO. 91 43 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES Interrogatory No. 1: Identify each instance where Defendant Hospital spoke to someone at Defendant City (or FDNY) regarding Plaintiff and for each identified instance provide the following: (a) the date of each instance; (b) the time of each instance; (c) the individual that spoke with the Defendant Hospital during each instance; (d) each individual who witnessed each identified instance; and (e) what was said by said individual and Defendant Hospital during each instance; and (f) job title of said individual iitol' Response to Interrogatory No. 1: The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the ground that it is overly broad instance" in scope in that it asks for "each regarding plaintiff Hadas Goldfarb (" ("Plaintiff") regardless of whether the conversation that took place between the Hospital "City" and the City of New York (the "City") or the Fire Department of New York ("FDNY") has any relevance to this action or to any of the allegations in the Amended Complaint. The "spoke" Hospital further objects to Interrogatory No. 1 on the ground that is vague and "spoke" ambiguous because it is undefined. Therefore, the Hospital will be defining to refer to verbal communications between individuals. Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, the Hospital identifies the following instances where personnel from the Hospital spoke with personnel employed by either the City or the FDNY regarding Plaintiff: 4 FILED: FILED : KINGS KINGS COUNTY COUNTY CLERK CLERK 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 03:05 10 :19 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 510225/2017 510225/2017 PM| NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. NO. NO. 91 43 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 In or around November 2015, Michael Koppel, manager of paramedic services operations at the Hospital's Department of Emergency Medical Services, spoke to Captain Cheryl Middleton from FDNY EMS Operations regarding Plaintiff's request for an exemption from the FDNY's EMSC OGP 200-o7, "Voluntary Hospital Ambulance Uniforms," Personnel section 3.1 (hereinafter "EMSC OGP 200-o7 Section 3.1"). Captain Middleton informed Mr. Koppel that the FDNY would not grant an exemption. Captain Middleton proceeded to explain that the FDNY rule against wearing skirts was due to concerns about worker mobility and safety in emergency, time-sensitive situations. On or around December 14, 2015, Mr. Koppel spoke to Harold Wagner, who then held the title of EMT and was assigned to the FDNY operations division. Interrogatory No. 2: Identify each instance where Defendant Hospital spoke to Plaintiff and for each identified instance provide the following: (a) the date of each instance; (b) the time of each instance; (c) the individual that spoke with Plaintiff during each instance; (d) each individual who witnessed each identified instance; and (e) what was said by said individual during each instance; and (f) job title of said individual Response to Interrogatory No. 2: The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the ground that it is overly broad instance" in scope in that it asks for "each anyone at the Hospital spoke with Plaintiff regardless of whether the conversation that took place between the Hospital and Plaintiff has any relevance to this action or to any of the allegations in the Amended 5 FILED: FILED : KINGS KINGS COUNTY COUNTY CLERK CLERK 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 03:05 10 :19 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 510225/2017 510225/2017 PM| NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. NO. NO. 91 43 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 Complaint. The Hospital further objects to Interrogatory No. 2 on the ground that "spoke" is vague and ambiguous because itis undefined. Therefore, the Hospital will be "spoke" defining to mean verbal communications between individuals. Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, the Hospital identifies the following instances it is currently aware of where someone from the Hospital spoke with Plaintiff and the discussion is related to the allegations in the Amended Complaint: In or around November and/or December 2015, Mr. Koppel spoke with Plaintiff on various occasions to discuss Plaintiff's possible employment at the Hospital as an Emergency Paramedic at the Hospital's Department of Emergency Management Department" Services (the "EMS Department") and safety concerns regarding her request to wear a skirt as part of her paramedic uniform. On or around November 24, 2015, Plaintiff advised Mr. Koppel that, when she was on duty as a paramedic, she wanted to wear a skirt as part of her paramedic uniform instead of pants for what she described as religious reasons. Mr. Koppel explained to Plaintiff that she had been hired as an Paramedic for EMS Department in- Emergency "911" service system ambulances. In either that conversation or subsequent conversations, Plaintiff was advised that she was required to abide by all FDNY rules, regulations, and policies, including FDNY's policy requiring EMS personnel to wear pants. He advised Plaintiff that he would ask the FDNY whether it would grant an exemption. Plaintiff inquired if there were any EMS positions that did not conform to the FDNY dress code; Mr. Koppel explained that there were not. On or around November 25, 2015, Mr. Koppel informed Plaintiff of his conversation with Captain Middleton (as set forth in the Hospital's Response to 6 FILED: FILED : KINGS KINGS COUNTY COUNTY CLERK CLERK 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 03:05 10 :19 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 510225/2017 510225/2017 PM| NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. NO. NO. 91 43 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 Interrogatory No. 1). He advised Plaintiff that he had provided Captain Middleton with Plaintiffs telephone number and that she should expect a telephone call from Captain Middleton. Plaintiff requested that she be transferred to an EMS position not subject to FDNY rules. Mr. Koppel explained that no such position existed at the Hospital. Plaintiff then asked to speak with an employee representative. Mr. Koppel provided her with contact information for Human Resources Manager Lisa Perlman. Upon information and belief, sometime between approximately November 25, 2015 and December 14, 2015, Plaintiff had a conversation with Ms. Perlman regarding her request to wear a skirt. On or around December 14, 2015, in approximately the afternoon, Mr. Koppel and Ms. Perlman spoke with Plaintiff about whether she was willing to comply with the FDNY's requirement that no skirts be worn by EMS workers. Plaintiff indicated that she would not. Mr. Koppel then informed her that her employment with the Hospital was terminated and that there was no need for her to finish the employee orientation. The Hospital is unable to identify any additional incidental conversations Plaintiff may have engaged in on December 14, 2015, to the extent Plaintiff had any additional conversations than the one set forth herein, with any other Hospital employees while she was attending the orientation for new employees. Interrogatory No. 3: State whether Defendant City conveyed to Defendant Hospital that Defendant Hospital would suffer repercussions if Defendant Hospital failed to enforce FDNY EMS OGP 2100-o7 Rule 3.1. Response to Interrogatory No. 3: The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 3 on the ground that the terms "conveyed" "repercussions" and are vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without 7 FILED: FILED : KINGS KINGS COUNTY COUNTY CLERK CLERK 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 03:05 10 :19 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 510225/2017 510225/2017 PM| NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. NO. NO. 91 43 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 waiver of this specific objection and the General Objections, the Hospital's communications with the City and the FDNY did not concern any adverse consequences to the Hospital for any alleged failure to enforce FDNY's rules because the Hospital did not intend to violate or refuse to enforce their rules. Rather, the Hospital inquired whether FDNY would grant an exemption to allow a skirt as part of a uniform and whether FDNY would accept a paramedic wearing a skirt as qualified to respond to 911 calls. Upon receipt of FDNY's answer that it would not qualify a paramedic in a skirt, the Hospital determined that Plaintiff was not qualified for the position unless she conformed to the dress requirements. Interrogatory No. 4: State whether FDNY was informed that Plaintiff would be terminated by Defendant Hospital, if FDNY would not authorize a dispensation for her to wear a skirt. Response to Interrogatory No. 4: The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 4 on the ground that it is vague and "dispensation" ambiguous because the term is undefined. Subject to and without waiver of this specific objection and the General Objections, personnel from the Hospital did not inform personnel at the FDNY that FDNY's decision not to authorize an exemption to the uniform policy would result in the termination of Plaintiff's employment. Interrogatory No. 5: If Defendant City did convey to Defendant Hospital that Defendant Hospital would suffer repercussion if Defendant Hospital failed to enforce Rule 3.1, identify what were those repercussions. Response to Interrogatory No. 5: The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 5 on the ground that the terms "convey" "repercussion" and are vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without waiver of 8 FILED: FILED : KINGS KINGS COUNTY COUNTY CLERK CLERK 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 03:05 10 :19 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 510225/2017 510225/2017 PM| NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. NO. NO. 91 43 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 this specific objection and the General Objections, the Hospital the Hospital directs Plaintiff to its Response and Objections to Interrogatory No. 3. Interrogatory No. 6: Is Defendant Hospital abiding to and enforcing Rule 3.1 required by Defendant Hospital's contract with FDNY? Response to Interrogatory No. 6: Subject to and without waiver of its General Objections, the Hospital states that its contractual obligations with FDNY require that the Hospital staff its ambulances with qualified personnel, determined by FDNY rules, regulations and policies, and that accordingly the Hospital must comply with FDNY's rules, regulations and policies or receive an exemption therefrom, for any ambulance that is available for response to 911 calls. As a matter of Hospital policy, all ambulances must be available and qualified to respond to 911 calls. Interrogatory No. 7: What are the repercussions that Defendant Hospital would face for failing to enforce Rule 3.1 or for failing to abide by Rule 3.1? Response to Interrogatory No. 7: The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 7 on the ground that it is vague and "repercussions" ambiguous as the term is undefined and on the ground that the interrogatory poses an incomplete and improper hypothetical. Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, should the Hospital fail to enforce EMSC OGP 200-o7 Section 3.1, itwould not be in compliance with applicable law, would be in breach of the 911 Ambulance Agreement between the City and the "Contract" Hospital (the "Contract"), and the FDNY would place off service any Hospital 9 FILED: FILED : KINGS KINGS COUNTY COUNTY CLERK CLERK 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 03:05 10 :19 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 510225/2017 510225/2017 PM| NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. NO. NO. 91 43 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 ambulances that were staffed with EMS workers not in compliance with EMSC OGP 200-o7 Section 3.1 until compliance was achieved. Interrogatory No. 8: What is the purpose of Rule 3.1? Response to Interrogatory No. 8: The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the ground that the Hospital did not promulgate Rule 3.1 and therefore cannot provide any definitive explanation of what "purpose" FDNY's in promulgating the Rule was. Interrogatory No. 9: What types of skirts are contemplated by Rule 3.1? Response to Interrogatory No. 9: The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the ground that the Hospital did not promulgate the rule and therefore cannot provide any definitive explanation of what "contemplated." FDNY Interrogatory No. 10: Would a skort be prohibited under Rule 3.1? Response to Interrogatory No. 10: The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the grounds that it is vague and "skort" ambiguous as the term are undefined and that it seeks information that is neither relevant nor reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. The Hospital further objects to Interrogatory No. 10 on the ground that the Hospital did not promulgate the rule and is not the body charged with itsinterpretation. Interrogatory No. 11: Does Rule 3.1 contemplate or prohibit wearing a skirt over leggings or pants? 10 FILED: FILED : KINGS KINGS COUNTY COUNTY CLERK CLERK 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 03:05 10 :19 PM INDEX INDEX NO. NO. 510225/2017 510225/2017 PM| NYSCEF NYSCEF DOC. DOC. NO. NO. 91 43 RECEIVED RECEIVED NYSCEF: NYSCEF: 05/27/2018 01/16/2018 Response to Interrogatory No. 11: The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 11 on the ground that the Hospital did not promulgate the rule and therefore cannot provide any definitive explanation of what "contemplated" "prohibits" FDNY or under the Rule. Interrogatory No. 12: State whether Defendant Hospital has previously requested an dispensation regarding Rule 3.1 from FDNY? Response to Interrogatory No. 12: The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 12 on the ground that it is vague and "dispensation" ambiguous because the term and is undefined. Subject to and without waiver of these specific objections and the General Objections, the Hospital has not previously requested that the FDNY to grant an exception to exempt a Hospital employee from the Rule. Interrogatory No. 13: What specific danger would result from an EMS worker wearing a skirt? Response to Interrogatory No. 13: The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 13 on the ground that it is vague, ambiguous, and calls for inappropriate speculation based on an incomplete and improper hypothetical. Interrogatory No. 14: Does Defendant Hospital have any studies or evidence regarding the safety concerns of EMS personnel wearing a sidrt? Response to Interrogatory No. 14: The Hospital objects to Interrogatory No. 14 because it is overly broad in scope evidence,"