BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Fired doctor’s discrimination case reinstated


A federal appeals court on Monday reinstated employment discrimination litigation filed by an Egyptian-born physician who was fired from a Brooklyn hospital’s risk management department, stating he had presented evidence of discriminatory animus.

Nashaat Moza, now 67, who speaks with a distinct Middle Eastern accent, worked in the clinical section of Kings County Hospital’s risk management department from 2008 until 2013, according to the complaint in Nashaat Moza v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., Kings County Hospital center, Robert Berding and Natalie Woll.

In March 2013, the hospital hired a new senior associate director of risk management who was Russian and about 15 years younger than Dr. Moza.

About a month later, she “began her intense campaign to terminate plaintiff.” Incidents reported in the complaint include an overheard phone call in which she reportedly said, “I know how to get rid of this stupid Egyptian guy.”

Dr. Moza was presented with an unsatisfactory performance evaluation in October 2013 and terminated, according to the complaint.

He filed suit in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn against the NYC Hospitals Corp., the hospital, the associate director of risk management and another hospital official, charging violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and New York City law.

The District Court dismissed the case, which was reinstated by a three-judge appeals court panel in Monday’s ruling. “Moza has demonstrated the existence of a triable fact issue as to whether Defendants-Appellees’ proffered reason for his dismissal was mere pretext,” said the ruling, pointing to the overheard phone conversation.

“Moza also provided other evidence of discriminatory animus towards him,” including additional comments made by the supervisor, said the ruling, in vacating the District Court’s summary judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Attorneys in the case could not immediately be reached for comment.


Read Next