The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court's judgment dismissing an employment discrimination lawsuit against Mount Sinai Health Systems and several individual defendants in a summary order issued Jan. 22, 2026.
Abbelen Maxius, who initially represented herself but later obtained pro bono counsel, sued her former employer Mount Sinai Health Systems Inc., Mount Sinai Beth Israel, and two supervisors, Christopher Berner and Judith S. Block. According to court records, Maxius alleged she was subjected to a hostile work environment and disparate treatment during her employment.
The Second Circuit panel, consisting of Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston and Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs and Barrington D. Parker, issued the ruling without a published opinion. The court's brief order stated that "upon due consideration" the district court's judgment was affirmed.
The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, where Judge Schofield presided over the proceedings. The district court apparently granted some form of dismissal in favor of the defendants, prompting Maxius to appeal to the Second Circuit.
Mount Sinai Health Systems, one of New York City's largest healthcare networks, was represented by attorneys Rory J. McEvoy and Brittany A. Buccellato of Akerman LLP. Maxius appeared pro se on the appeal, representing herself without counsel.
The Second Circuit's decision came in the form of a summary order, which the court noted "do not have precedential effect." Such orders are typically used for cases that do not present novel legal issues or where the outcome is relatively straightforward based on existing precedent.
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and the Second Circuit's Local Rule 32.1.1, summary orders filed after Jan. 1, 2007, may be cited in legal documents. However, parties citing summary orders must reference either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database with the notation "summary order," and must serve copies on unrepresented parties.
The case number 24-2524-cv indicates the appeal was filed in 2024. The "cv" designation signifies this was a civil case, consistent with the employment discrimination nature of the underlying lawsuit.
Employment discrimination cases involving healthcare institutions have become increasingly common in federal courts. Plaintiffs in such cases typically allege violations of federal employment laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Mount Sinai Health Systems operates multiple hospitals and medical facilities throughout New York City, including Mount Sinai Beth Israel, which was named as a separate defendant in this case. As a major employer in the healthcare sector, the system regularly faces employment-related litigation.
The fact that Maxius initially proceeded pro se but later obtained pro bono counsel suggests she may have faced financial constraints in pursuing her case. Pro bono representation in employment cases is often provided by legal aid organizations or attorneys willing to take cases without compensation.
However, even with legal representation, Maxius was unsuccessful in her appeal. The Second Circuit's affirmance means the district court's ruling stands, and the case is effectively concluded unless Maxius seeks review from the Supreme Court, which rarely grants certiorari in employment discrimination cases absent a significant legal question.
The summary order provides limited detail about the specific claims raised by Maxius or the legal reasoning behind the dismissal. This is typical for summary orders, which are designed to efficiently resolve appeals that do not require extended analysis.
For employment law practitioners, the case serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by individual plaintiffs in discrimination cases against large institutional defendants. Healthcare employers, in particular, often have substantial legal resources to defend against such claims.
The ruling also demonstrates the Second Circuit's continued use of summary orders to manage its caseload efficiently. The court hears hundreds of appeals annually, and summary orders allow it to resolve straightforward cases without the time and resources required for full published opinions.
While the specific circumstances of Maxius's employment and the nature of her allegations remain unclear from the available court records, the affirmance suggests the district court's analysis was legally sound and supported by the evidence presented.
The case represents another example of the federal courts' handling of workplace discrimination claims in the healthcare sector, an area that continues to generate significant litigation as employees seek to enforce their rights under federal employment laws.