Northwell Health & Dr. Rajapakse Discrimination Lawsuit Update

NYSDHR Case No. 10248919

On April 10, 2026, the Law Office of David H. Rosenberg, P.C. submitted a rebuttal on behalf of Complainant in the aforementioned matter against Northwell Health Inc. and Ramona Rajapakse, M.D. (“Respondents”) with the New York State Division of Human Rights, responding to Complainant’s November 6, 2025, position statement, asserting that age discriminated be amended to the Verified Complaint, and that probable cause be granted based on the evidence in the record.

This is a gender, familial/marital status discrimination, as well as retaliation case (see Northwell Sued Again For Discrimination And Retaliation). The rebuttal further argues that age discrimination should be added based on the Respondents’ own statements.

According to the publicly filed rebuttal, the evidence in the record showed that Dr. Rajapakse admitted she attempted to control Complainant’s parenting decisions, including childcare arrangements:

“I told her [Complainant] that as a working mother myself, I understood her challenges, even though mine are grown. I suggested that she have a backup babysitter in case her kids were sick, as I had to do when mine were young.”

The public record showed that this conduct went beyond a suggestion, as Dr. Rajapakse involved herself directly in the Complainant’s child’s medical care:

“When NP’s daughter was sick, I called a GI pediatrician at Stony Brook to get a Northwell pediatrician recommendation.”

The public record also showed that Dr. Rajapske actively pursued control over Complainant’s ability as a parent to seek proper medical attention for her child, having confessed to calling for a doctor and doctor recommendation for Complainant’s child herself. 

“When Northwell docs asked if I’d like to invite a couple of people from my office to their Christmas party, I named the manager and NP [Complainant]. When NP’s daughter was sick, I called a GI pediatrician at Stony Brook to get a Northwell pediatrician recommendation.”

As alleged in the publicly filed rebuttal, the public record supports that Dr. Rajapakse not only wanted Complainant at the Christmas Party as her date, but also attempted to control Complainant’s physical appearance and weight, having directed her to follow a specific diet, and even tracked her progress:

“a diet I had devised which worked” until “she shed 30lbs [sic] on my diet.”

According to the publicly filed rebuttal, the evidence in the record showed that Dr. Ramona Rajapakse required Complainant to keep food records and expressed frustration when she could not monitor her eating, stating she intended to write a “book” about the weight loss.

In the publicly filed rebuttal, the record was argued to support the notion that Dr. Rajapske instructed Complainant to keep “a record of recipes” of what she had been eating, whined about attending lunch with her “occasionally” which made Complainant’s eating habits more difficult to control, and even conceded she planned on writing a “book” about Complainant being forced to lose weight at work.

The public record showed that this toxic fascination went beyond her obsession with Complainant’s bodyweight. Indeed, the public record also showed that Dr. Rajapske sought to control other aspects of Complainant’s medical care and treatment, having grown irate when Complainant “said she had Covid” and refused her order to “go for testing to a Northwell site”  so that she – Dr. Rajapske – could maintain control of Complainant.

The public record shows that, after Complainant reported the conduct to Human Resources, Dr. Ramona Rajapakse retaliated and challenged her right to complain before “speaking to me first” and should have just simply “recogniz[ed] her limitations.”

As alleged in the publicly filed rebuttal, the record also shows Dr. Rajapakse further retaliated by accusing Complainant of defamation, despite never pursuing legal action over the alleged statement. As to why Complainant would oppose instead of simply acquiesce to the discriminatory treatment,  Dr. Rajapske seemed to opine that it was all about Complainant’s age, having “ascribed it to her…youth,” which the Firm argued formed the basis for adding an age discrimination claim.

If you or someone you know is experiencing issues at work, contact the Law Office of David H. Rosenberg, P.C. at (516) 741-0300.

Problems at work are no problem for us.

The information and allegations cited herein come directly from publicly filed documentation and are meant as a form of attorney advertising.