January 5, 2026 • 21 mins
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
What happens when a seasoned cardiologist finds himself at the crossroads of age discrimination and employment law? Join Mark Carey in this riveting episode of the Employee Survival Guide® as he unpacks the controversial case of Dr. Arthur Fass, who alleged age discrimination against Northwell Health after the abrupt non-renewal of his contract. This episode is not just a tale of one man's age discrimination struggle; it's a deep dive into the complexities of employment contracts and the often-overlooked implications of automatic renewal clauses that can provide essential job security for employees.
Mark dissects the dramatic shift from a multi-year contract to a precarious one-year deal, illuminating how this transition sparked allegations of age discrimination. The court's findings reveal a web of circumstantial evidence that suggests Northwell's purported business reasons might have masked deeper issues of discrimination. This episode serves as a cautionary tale for employers and employees alike, emphasizing the critical importance of clarity in internal communications and the potential legal ramifications stemming from seemingly minor details.
As they navigate the intricate landscape of employment law, the discussion touches on pivotal topics such as severance negotiation, employee rights, and the ever-present threat of workplace discrimination. Whether you're dealing with age discrimination, disability rights in the workplace, or navigating employment contracts, this episode is packed with invaluable insights that can empower you in your career journey. From understanding performance reviews to tackling workplace harassment, Mark offers insider tips that can help you survive and thrive in today’s complex work environment.
The Employee Survival Guide® is your essential resource for mastering the nuances of workplace culture and legal rights at work. Tune in to learn how to advocate for yourself, negotiate effectively, and navigate the murky waters of employment disputes. Don't let ageism or discrimination derail your career; equip yourself with the knowledge and skills to stand tall against the challenges of the modern workplace. Join us for this enlightening episode that promises to change the way you think about your rights and responsibilities as an employee!
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_01 (00:18):
Okay, let's just dive right in.
I want you to imagine somethingfor a moment.
You're at the absolute peak ofyour professional life.
We're talking four decades ofwork.
You're celebrated as a legend inyour field.
You hold these prestigioustitles.
SPEAKER_00 (00:33):
And you're not slowing down, not one bit.
SPEAKER_01 (00:35):
Not at all.
But you're approaching, say, theage of 70.
And for years, for decades, youremployment contract has had this
one rock solid guarantee.
The automatic renewal.
Exactly.
That automatic renewal.
For a senior professional,that's more than just, you know,
a line in a contract, right?
It's the foundation of yourcareer security.
SPEAKER_00 (00:54):
It is.
It sets a very clear, veryreasonable expectation that the
job is long term.
It's continuous.
Unless you really mess up or youboth agree to part ways, you're
staying.
It shifts the whole powerdynamic.
SPEAKER_01 (01:06):
Right.
But what happens when thatsecurity, that expectation
you've built your life around,is suddenly yanked away,
replaced by a non-renewableone-year deal.
And the institution you helpbuild starts insisting you
should retire, even when you sayvery clearly, I'm not retiring.
SPEAKER_00 (01:21):
That's the whole conflict.
That sudden radical shift is theabsolute heart of the federal
court ruling we're diving intotoday.
FASS v.
Northwell Healthcare System.
SPEAKER_01 (01:30):
So our mission today is to really get into the weeds
of this.
We're looking at how apreeminent cardiologist, Dr.
Arthur Fass, alleged agediscrimination after Northwell
Health, refused to renew hiscontract.
SPEAKER_00 (01:42):
And the key concept for you to follow here is
pretext.
We need to unpack how the courtfound just enough circumstantial
evidence, evidence Northwellprobably thought was totally
harmless, to suggest that theirbusiness reasons might just be a
cover-up for age discrimination.
SPEAKER_01 (01:57):
Aaron Powell So we have the parties, Dr.
Fass, the cardiologist with 40plus years of experience, and
the defendant, Northwell Health,a huge nonprofit healthcare
provider.
SPEAKER_00 (02:08):
Aaron Powell And Northwell, feeling pretty
confident, asks the court forsummary judgment.
They're basically saying, judge,look at the contract, it's
unambiguous.
There's no way a jury could findfor Dr.
Fast, so let's just end thisnow.
SPEAKER_01 (02:17):
Aaron Powell And the court's response was a
resounding, not so fast.
SPEAKER_00 (02:22):
A very resounding no.
The core finding here, and thisis the big takeaway, was that
there was just enough detail,enough circumstantial evidence
in those internal emails and theway the contract negotiation was
structured to create what thelaw calls a triable issue of
fact.
SPEAKER_01 (02:37):
Aaron Powell Which means what exactly?
SPEAKER_00 (02:39):
It means a jury has to decide, not the judge.
A jury has to hear both sidesand figure out whose story is
more believable.
Was Northwell's action genuinelyabout a new program, or was it
intentionally discriminatory?
SPEAKER_01 (02:50):
Aaron Powell This deep dive is, I mean, it's a
masterclass for anyone inemployment law, or even just
high-stakes negotiation.
It shows how these seeminglysmall things, the labels you use
in an email, setting impossiblegoals, can completely undermine
your legal defense.
SPEAKER_00 (03:06):
Aaron Powell The context, the intent, it all
matters just as much, if notmore, than the final signature
on the dotted line.
It's a textbook case of how yourown records can be weaponized
against you.
SPEAKER_01 (03:15):
Aaron Powell Okay, so let's start at the beginning,
section one.
The foundation of security.
We need to establish thebaseline of Dr.
Fass's career.
SPEAKER_00 (03:23):
And we have to understand, Dr.
Fass wasn't just some guy theyhired.
He co-founded North StateCardiology, a very successful
practice.
SPEAKER_01 (03:31):
So he was an owner.
SPEAKER_00 (03:32):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (03:33):
An entrepreneur.
That's a different level ofinvestment in the institution.
SPEAKER_00 (03:36):
It's critical context.
By 2013, he's around 60 yearsold, and his practice gets
bought by Phelps Hospital, whichis later absorbed by the massive
Northwell system.
When you acquire a practice likethat, you're not just buying
equipment, you're buyinggoodwill, patient loyalty, and
the founders who built it all.
SPEAKER_01 (03:53):
And the first contract, the 2013 one, seems to
reflect that respect.
It really set the stage for hisexpectations later on.
SPEAKER_00 (04:00):
It did.
It was an initial five-yearterm, but the crucial part was
the automatic renewal provisionfor another five years.
SPEAKER_01 (04:05):
So the default setting was renewal.
SPEAKER_00 (04:07):
Exactly.
Renewal was the default.
To stop it, either the hospitalor FASS himself had to give 180
days' notice that they intendednot to renew.
If everyone stayed quiet, boom,another five years.
That's a huge guarantee oflongevity.
SPEAKER_01 (04:20):
And Fass himself said this was a big deal.
He testified he was pleased withit, that it gave him a degree of
security.
He felt it showed the hospitalwas planning on keeping him long
term.
SPEAKER_00 (04:30):
And that testimony is what grounds his expectation.
In a field like cardiology,these kinds of contracts are a
sign that the institution isinvesting heavily in retaining
top talent, often well intotheir traditional retirement
years.
SPEAKER_01 (04:43):
Let's talk about performance because Northwell
never said he was a bad doctor.
His pay was tied to this metric: work relative value units or (04:46):
undefined
WRVUs.
SPEAKER_00 (04:52):
Right, WRVUs.
We should probably explain whatthose are.
It's basically a standardizedmeasure across healthcare to
quantify how productive a doctoris.
It's linked to billing codes.
The more complex the work, themore patients you see, the
higher your WRVUs.
It's a direct line to revenue.
SPEAKER_01 (05:06):
And the initial target for him and his two
partners back in 2013 was acollective 25,000 WRVUs a year.
A pretty substantial amount ofwork.
SPEAKER_00 (05:14):
A very significant volume.
And on top of that, hisprofessional reputation was just
stellar.
In 2017, at age 63, he getsappointed director of medicine
at the hospital.
SPEAKER_01 (05:24):
So he's taking on administrative duties.
SPEAKER_00 (05:26):
Big ones.
Recruiting physicians,organizing committees.
It took up about 20% of histime.
And even his bosses, like Dr.
Varender Singh, a senior VP atNorthwell, called him a legend
and a very good doctor.
The praise was documented.
SPEAKER_01 (05:40):
And there's a classic problem there, right?
You get promoted intomanagement, which is
prestigious, but it eats intoyour clinical time.
SPEAKER_00 (05:45):
It eats into your WRVUs.
The system is asking you totrade raw production for
institutional leadership.
SPEAKER_01 (05:51):
Aaron Powell Which brings us to the 2019 contract.
FAS is 66 now.
It's a new three-year agreement,and it actually accounts for his
administrative work by loweringthat commitment to 10% of his
time.
But that security mechanism, itwas still there.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (06:05):
Yes.
This is the second anchor forhis expectations.
The 2019 deal still had anautomatic renewal clause, this
time for one-year terms, butstill renewal was the default.
And again, FAST testified thiswas important to him.
SPEAKER_01 (06:19):
So from 2013 all the way to 2022, we see a clear,
consistent pattern.
A decade of multi-year contractswhere the default is
continuation, not termination.
That's the baseline.
SPEAKER_00 (06:29):
That's the baseline that Northwell then tries to
abruptly dismantle, which takesus right into section two.
The crossroads.
This is where the subtlegroundwork for that dismantling
begins.
SPEAKER_01 (06:41):
The first hint of this, this succession planning
idea, comes in an email inSeptember 2019.
It's from Dr.
Zimmerman, FASS partner.
SPEAKER_00 (06:50):
Right.
And this is a critical point ofdispute.
Zimmerman emails Northwellexecutives about recruiting a
new cardiologist, and he usesthe phrase succession planning.
Northwell later points to thisas proof that the doctors
themselves started theretirement talk.
SPEAKER_01 (07:04):
But Fass had a totally different take on it.
SPEAKER_00 (07:06):
A completely different take.
He testified that Zimmerman wasspeaking for himself.
Fass said yes, they needed a newdoctor, but only because the
practice was simply too busy.
It was about growth, not aboutreplacing him.
SPEAKER_01 (07:18):
And that's a huge difference in interpretation.
Is this hiring for growth or isit hiring for his exit?
SPEAKER_00 (07:23):
The whole case hinges on questions like that.
Now, fast forward to late 2022.
The 2019 contract hadautomatically renewed, so he's
on that rolling one-year term.
And now Northwell executives,including a new chair of
cardiology, Dr.
Binoy Singh, start asking FASSabout his long-term plans.
SPEAKER_01 (07:41):
And this is where they create the leverage.
October 7th, 2022.
An email goes around to theexecutives with two proposed
options for FASS's nextcontract.
SPEAKER_00 (07:50):
And this is the moment of the false choice.
We have to break these twooptions down because they are
the legal engine of his wholepretext claim.
SPEAKER_01 (07:58):
Okay.
Option hashtag one.
What was that?
SPEAKER_00 (08:00):
Option hashtag one was the one Northwell clearly
wanted him to take.
Internally, and this is soimportant, they labeled it the
career completion contract.
SPEAKER_01 (08:08):
Wow.
They actually wrote that down.
SPEAKER_00 (08:10):
They wrote it down in an email.
It was for a fixed,non-renewable one-year term.
And it came with a much lighterpart-time schedule, only
expecting about 2,900 WRVUs.
SPEAKER_01 (08:19):
Okay.
And option hashtag two.
SPEAKER_00 (08:20):
Option hashtag two was labeled the full-time
renewal.
It was a full-time schedule witha clinical-based salary, but and
this is the kicker, it came withan expectation of 7,785 annual
WRVUs.
SPEAKER_01 (08:32):
Wait, 7,785.
Let's put that in perspective.
The target for all threepartners back in 2013 was
25,000.
So almost 8,000 for one personis a huge solo commitment.
SPEAKER_00 (08:45):
It's massive.
And this is where theoperational reality collides
with the legal claim.
Remember, FAS still has his 10%administrative duties as
director of medicine.
He's teaching residents.
SPEAKER_01 (08:55):
Those aren't billable WRVUs.
SPEAKER_00 (08:57):
Exactly.
Those activities, which arevital to Northwell's mission,
don't generate WRVUs.
FASS testified he was alreadyworking at maximum capacity.
To hit that 7,785 target on topof everything else, I mean it
would be like working 120% of afull-time schedule.
He said it was impossible.
SPEAKER_01 (09:14):
So he's caught.
SPEAKER_00 (09:21):
Right.
Or a non-renewable contract thatguarantees his exit in one year.
He felt he did not have achoice.
He felt he was being forced intothe part-time dead-end contract.
SPEAKER_01 (09:29):
And the internal emails back this up.
One of the executives, a Dr.
Gotlock, sends an email to thegroup.
SPEAKER_00 (09:34):
Yes, and this email is just a gift to the
plaintiff's lawyers.
He writes that he's okay withwhichever plaintiff accepts, but
then he adds this line.
Although I think it's clear tomost of us that option one
seemingly makes most sense.
SPEAKER_01 (09:48):
So they're documenting their own
preference.
They're steering him toward thecareer completion contract.
SPEAKER_00 (09:54):
That's the argument.
That email transforms a supposedchoice into a management
recommendation.
They were already viewing this69-year-old doctor through the
lens of career completion.
They had already decided hispath.
SPEAKER_01 (10:06):
But let me play devil's advocate for a second.
They still offered him thefull-time option.
Why didn't he just take it andthen try to negotiate the WRVU
target down?
Isn't that on him?
SPEAKER_00 (10:16):
That's Northwell's defense, of course.
But the court looks at thetotality of the circumstances.
They were pressuring him tochoose quickly.
Dr.
Varinder Singh replied to oneemail saying, sooner the better,
we need a decision.
When you combine that pressurewith the impossible metric, a
jury can infer that they knewexactly what they were doing.
SPEAKER_01 (10:33):
They created a scenario where any rational
person would see option two as asetup for failure.
SPEAKER_00 (10:39):
Leaving option one as the only path to short-term
stability.
So Fass signs it, December 28,2022.
But he's not happy about that norenewal clause.
It's a huge break from hisentire history.
SPEAKER_01 (10:54):
And this next part is maybe the single most
important dispute in the wholecase.
It's what saves him from summaryjudgment.
SPEAKER_00 (11:00):
It is.
Fass testified that when heraised his concerns about the
non-renewal part to Dr.
Benoit Singh, he was led tobelieve the situation would be
readdressed during the course ofthe following year.
SPEAKER_01 (11:11):
But he admits there was no explicit promise, right?
No handshake deal, no, don'tworry, we'll renew you.
SPEAKER_00 (11:16):
Correct.
Northwell denies any suchimplication was ever made.
But for the purpose of a summaryjudgment motion, the court has
to take FASS testimony as true.
His subjective belief that thecontract's clear words were
softened by this vague promiseto talk later is just enough to
create that triable issue.
SPEAKER_01 (11:34):
So a jury has to decide who was telling the truth
in that conversation.
SPEAKER_00 (11:37):
Exactly.
And what's really telling iswhat Northwell did internally
right after he signed.
They immediately start planningto initiate, develop practice
transition strategy, and discussrecruitment.
SPEAKER_01 (11:47):
Which is both their defense and potentially the
proof of their intent.
SPEAKER_00 (11:51):
Aaron Powell It's a double-edged sword.
It shows they were makingbusiness decisions based on his
contract choice.
But it also supports Fass'sargument that they had already
decided he was retiring, andthis was just the mechanism to
make it happen, regardless ofwhat he wanted.
SPEAKER_01 (12:04):
And that fuse they lit in late 2022 burns all the
way to August 2023.
This brings us to section three: the refusal and the argument (12:10):
undefined
over adverse action.
SPEAKER_00 (12:15):
Yes, the confrontation.
Fass, now turning 70, decidesit's time to have that
conversation he thought waspromised.
He goes into Dr.
Benoit Singh's office and askswhat his employment will look
like after 2023.
SPEAKER_01 (12:26):
And the answer is just blunt.
SPEAKER_00 (12:28):
Incredibly blunt.
Dr.
Singh just confirms hisemployment ends December 31st.
And Fass is, in his words,incredulous, taken aback and
extremely upset.
SPEAKER_01 (12:37):
The testimony includes him yelling, You're not
gonna fuck me.
That's not the reaction ofsomeone who expected their
contract to end.
SPEAKER_00 (12:44):
Not at all.
And what's more, his partner,Dr.
Zerman, was in the room and wasalso incredulous.
He reportedly asked Dr.
Singh, You don't really mean todo that, do you?
If this was all just the naturalexpected end of a contract, why
would they both be so shocked?
SPEAKER_01 (12:59):
Right after this confrontation, the pressure to
officially call it a retirementstarts to build.
SPEAKER_00 (13:04):
It does.
A VP, Mrs.
Hathaway Rosseter, talks toFess, and in her own notes, she
documents that he asked herpoint blank if the non-renewal
was because of his age.
SPEAKER_01 (13:14):
And what was her response?
SPEAKER_00 (13:15):
Her immediate response was to ask him if he
would consider retiring butcontinuing to teach residents in
a voluntary capacity.
SPEAKER_01 (13:23):
So unpaid.
After he just raised the issueof age discrimination, they ask
him to work for free.
SPEAKER_00 (13:28):
It sends a terrible message.
It suggests they value hisexpertise only if it costs them
nothing.
Then, in a September meeting,the executives repeatedly asked
him to write a letter to hispatients saying he was retiring.
SPEAKER_01 (13:40):
And he refused.
He said, I'm not retiring.
That's your decision, not mine.
He drew a very clear line.
This was involuntary.
SPEAKER_00 (13:48):
But Northwell just went ahead anyway.
In November, they sent lettersto his patients announcing he
was ending his storied tenureand listing other doctors they
could see.
They created the retirementnarrative they wanted,
completely overriding hiswishes.
SPEAKER_01 (14:01):
So Northwell's defense to the court was what?
What were their legitimatereasons?
unknown (14:06):
Dr.
SPEAKER_00 (14:06):
Varinder Singh laid out two main points.
First, FASS made his choice.
He signed the one-year deal, andthey were simply holding him to
his decision.
It was a business deal.
SPEAKER_01 (14:16):
Okay, that's sounds plausible.
What was the second reason?
SPEAKER_00 (14:19):
Second, Singh said he had a vision of a program
that required recruitingcardiologists with specific
specialties and long-termcommitments.
Since FASS chose the shortone-year term, Singh took FASS
out of that vision.
He argued that if FASS had takenthe three-year deal, he would
have been part of the plan.
SPEAKER_01 (14:36):
That sounds like a very strong, logical business
argument.
SPEAKER_00 (14:40):
It is.
It's the core of their motion.
They even offered him anextension of his administrative
role, which he turned downbecause he wanted his clinical
job back, so they could arguethey were trying to accommodate
him.
SPEAKER_01 (14:50):
Which brings us to the legal fight.
Section four.
The legal showdown.
This is where the court picksapart that very plausible story.
SPEAKER_00 (14:59):
Aaron Powell To understand this, we have to look
at the McDonnell Douglasframework.
It's the three-step legal testfor discrimination cases.
SPEAKER_01 (15:06):
Aaron Powell Step one is the employee has to show
a basic or prima facie case.
SPEAKER_00 (15:10):
Right.
You're in a protected class over40, you're qualified, you
suffered an adverse action, andthere's some inference of
discrimination.
SPEAKER_01 (15:18):
Step two, the burden shifts to the employer to give a
legitimate, non-discriminatoryreason.
SPEAKER_00 (15:23):
Aaron Powell Which Northwell did.
The contract, the programmaticvision.
SPEAKER_01 (15:27):
Step three, the birdie shifts back to the
employee to prove that reasonwas just a pretext, a cover
story, and that age was the realbut for cause.
SPEAKER_00 (15:35):
Aaron Powell Exactly.
And Northwell's first attack wason step one.
They argued this wasn't even anadverse employment action.
SPEAKER_01 (15:42):
Aaron Powell How could ending a 40-year career
not be an adverse action?
SPEAKER_00 (15:46):
Their argument was that it was just the natural end
of a contract he chose.
A contract with no renewalclause.
Therefore, he had no reasonableexpectation of renewal, so
legally nothing adversehappened.
SPEAKER_01 (15:58):
But the court didn't buy that.
SPEAKER_00 (16:00):
Not at all.
They cited a key precedent,Leibowitz v.
Cornell, which says non-renewalcan be an adverse action.
And they said Fass's testimony,that he was led to believe
renewal would be discussed, wasenough to establish a reasonable
expectation, at least for thisearly stage of the case.
SPEAKER_01 (16:18):
So he clears that first hurdle.
Northwell easily clears thesecond with their business
reasons.
So it all comes down to stepthree, pretext.
SPEAKER_00 (16:26):
The whole ballgame.
And Northwell hammered the pointthat Fass had no direct
evidence.
In his deposition, he literallysaid, I have no other
explanation for why thishappened, other than his age.
They argued that that's just asubjective feeling, not proof.
SPEAKER_01 (16:39):
But this is where the court connects all the dots,
all the little pieces ofcircumstantial evidence.
SPEAKER_00 (16:43):
The court weaves them into a single compelling
narrative that a jury couldbelieve, and they lay it out
point by point.
SPEAKER_01 (16:49):
First, the timing.
They started asking about hisretirement before they even
offered him the contracts.
SPEAKER_00 (16:55):
Second, the language, that internal label,
the career completion contract.
That's a huge piece of evidenceabout their state of mind.
It's legally toxic.
SPEAKER_01 (17:05):
Third, the false choice itself, offering a
long-term option with animpossible performance target.
A jury could easily see that asa setup.
SPEAKER_00 (17:14):
Fourth, the pressure.
Sooner the better.
We need a decision.
They wanted him locked into thatshort-term deal so they could
move on.
SPEAKER_01 (17:21):
Fifth, the immediate planning for his transition as
soon as he signed.
And finally, the aggressive pushfor him to call it a retirement.
SPEAKER_00 (17:29):
Exactly.
When you add it all up, thecourt said a reasonable jury
could see this as Northwellsystematically maneuvering him
into retirement.
Not just honoring a contract,but engineering an outcome.
SPEAKER_01 (17:40):
But what about Northwell's best defense, the
same actor presumption?
SPEAKER_00 (17:44):
Right.
This is a strong legal shieldfor employers.
The idea is if the same personwho hired or contracted with
you, knowing your age, is thesame person who makes the
adverse decision, it's unlikelythat age was the reason.
SPEAKER_01 (17:56):
And here, Dr.
Varinder Singh approved theone-year deal knowing Foss was
69, and he was the ultimatedecision maker not to renew it.
That seems to fit perfectly.
SPEAKER_00 (18:06):
It does, but the court said the presumption is
permissive, not mandatory.
And they made a really cleverdistinction about advancing age.
SPEAKER_01 (18:14):
What does that mean?
SPEAKER_00 (18:15):
It means a jury could find that while Dr.
Singh was okay hiring a69-year-old for one more year,
he wasn't okay with that sameperson turning 70 and continuing
to be part of the long-termprogrammatic vision.
SPEAKER_01 (18:27):
Aaron Powell So it's the difference between he's old
but fine for now, and okay, nowhe's too old for our future
plans.
SPEAKER_00 (18:34):
Precisely.
The programmatic vision itselfcould be seen as a cover for a
decision based on his advancingage.
SPEAKER_01 (18:41):
So in the end, the judge acknowledges that Foss's
case is on thin ice because somuch of it hangs on his word
against theirs about that oneconversation.
SPEAKER_00 (18:48):
Aaron Powell It all comes down to a classic he said
he believed credibility fight.
Did Dr.
Sing mislead him or did Dr.
Foss misunderstand?
And because only a jury candecide who's more believable by
listening to them testify, thejudge had to deny summary
judgment.
SPEAKER_01 (19:02):
The court's job is issue identification, not issue
resolution.
They found the central issue,and now it's up to a jury to
resolve it.
SPEAKER_00 (19:10):
And the lesson there is that your internal conduct,
your emails, your labels cancompletely empower an employee's
subjective perception and blowup the cleanest contract you
have.
SPEAKER_01 (19:20):
So synthesizing all of this, what's the key lesson
here?
SPEAKER_00 (19:24):
I think the key lesson is that in these age
discrimination cases, especiallywith fixed-term contracts, the
internal chatter mattersimmensely.
A label like career completioncontract or creating an
impossible choice can completelyovercome the legal protections
an employer thinks they have.
SPEAKER_01 (19:41):
The documentation just betrayed them.
They might have had a legitimatevision, but the way they
executed it, by pushing theretirement narrative and using
that loaded language, createdall the evidence a plaintiff
needs to get to a jury.
SPEAKER_00 (19:52):
It's a masterclass in what not to do.
If you have a legitimate,non-discriminatory plan, you
have to execute it with absoluteconsistency and clarity.
The moment you start talkingabout retirement or using exit
focused language with an olderemployee, you are handing them
the building blocks for alawsuit.
SPEAKER_01 (20:09):
So what happens now?
The court has set a conferencefor September 2025 and told the
lawyers to discuss settlement ingood faith, which leads to our
final.
Final provocative thought.
SPEAKER_00 (20:20):
How likely is it that Northwell actually risks
this going to a jury?
A jury that is just going to bedeciding who they believe about
a conversation from years ago.
This denial of summary judgmentcompletely changes the leverage.
They're now staring down thebarrel of a very unpredictable
trial where the jury's feelingsabout fairness might matter a
lot more than the fine print ina contract.
(20:41):
The pressure to settle is nowimmense.
Okay, let's just dive right in.
I want you to imagine somethingfor a moment.
You're at the absolute peak ofyour professional life.
We're talking four decades ofwork.
You're celebrated as a legend inyour field.
You hold these prestigioustitles.
SPEAKER_00 (00:33):
And you're not slowing down, not one bit.
SPEAKER_01 (00:35):
Not at all.
But you're approaching, say, theage of 70.
And for years, for decades, youremployment contract has had this
one rock solid guarantee.
The automatic renewal.
Exactly.
That automatic renewal.
For a senior professional,that's more than just, you know,
a line in a contract, right?
It's the foundation of yourcareer security.
SPEAKER_00 (00:54):
It is.
It sets a very clear, veryreasonable expectation that the
job is long term.
It's continuous.
Unless you really mess up or youboth agree to part ways, you're
staying.
It shifts the whole powerdynamic.
SPEAKER_01 (01:06):
Right.
But what happens when thatsecurity, that expectation
you've built your life around,is suddenly yanked away,
replaced by a non-renewableone-year deal.
And the institution you helpbuild starts insisting you
should retire, even when you sayvery clearly, I'm not retiring.
SPEAKER_00 (01:21):
That's the whole conflict.
That sudden radical shift is theabsolute heart of the federal
court ruling we're diving intotoday.
FASS v.
Northwell Healthcare System.
SPEAKER_01 (01:30):
So our mission today is to really get into the weeds
of this.
We're looking at how apreeminent cardiologist, Dr.
Arthur Fass, alleged agediscrimination after Northwell
Health, refused to renew hiscontract.
SPEAKER_00 (01:42):
And the key concept for you to follow here is
pretext.
We need to unpack how the courtfound just enough circumstantial
evidence, evidence Northwellprobably thought was totally
harmless, to suggest that theirbusiness reasons might just be a
cover-up for age discrimination.
SPEAKER_01 (01:57):
Aaron Powell So we have the parties, Dr.
Fass, the cardiologist with 40plus years of experience, and
the defendant, Northwell Health,a huge nonprofit healthcare
provider.
SPEAKER_00 (02:08):
Aaron Powell And Northwell, feeling pretty
confident, asks the court forsummary judgment.
They're basically saying, judge,look at the contract, it's
unambiguous.
There's no way a jury could findfor Dr.
Fast, so let's just end thisnow.
SPEAKER_01 (02:17):
Aaron Powell And the court's response was a
resounding, not so fast.
SPEAKER_00 (02:22):
A very resounding no.
The core finding here, and thisis the big takeaway, was that
there was just enough detail,enough circumstantial evidence
in those internal emails and theway the contract negotiation was
structured to create what thelaw calls a triable issue of
fact.
SPEAKER_01 (02:37):
Aaron Powell Which means what exactly?
SPEAKER_00 (02:39):
It means a jury has to decide, not the judge.
A jury has to hear both sidesand figure out whose story is
more believable.
Was Northwell's action genuinelyabout a new program, or was it
intentionally discriminatory?
SPEAKER_01 (02:50):
Aaron Powell This deep dive is, I mean, it's a
masterclass for anyone inemployment law, or even just
high-stakes negotiation.
It shows how these seeminglysmall things, the labels you use
in an email, setting impossiblegoals, can completely undermine
your legal defense.
SPEAKER_00 (03:06):
Aaron Powell The context, the intent, it all
matters just as much, if notmore, than the final signature
on the dotted line.
It's a textbook case of how yourown records can be weaponized
against you.
SPEAKER_01 (03:15):
Aaron Powell Okay, so let's start at the beginning,
section one.
The foundation of security.
We need to establish thebaseline of Dr.
Fass's career.
SPEAKER_00 (03:23):
And we have to understand, Dr.
Fass wasn't just some guy theyhired.
He co-founded North StateCardiology, a very successful
practice.
SPEAKER_01 (03:31):
So he was an owner.
SPEAKER_00 (03:32):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_01 (03:33):
An entrepreneur.
That's a different level ofinvestment in the institution.
SPEAKER_00 (03:36):
It's critical context.
By 2013, he's around 60 yearsold, and his practice gets
bought by Phelps Hospital, whichis later absorbed by the massive
Northwell system.
When you acquire a practice likethat, you're not just buying
equipment, you're buyinggoodwill, patient loyalty, and
the founders who built it all.
SPEAKER_01 (03:53):
And the first contract, the 2013 one, seems to
reflect that respect.
It really set the stage for hisexpectations later on.
SPEAKER_00 (04:00):
It did.
It was an initial five-yearterm, but the crucial part was
the automatic renewal provisionfor another five years.
SPEAKER_01 (04:05):
So the default setting was renewal.
SPEAKER_00 (04:07):
Exactly.
Renewal was the default.
To stop it, either the hospitalor FASS himself had to give 180
days' notice that they intendednot to renew.
If everyone stayed quiet, boom,another five years.
That's a huge guarantee oflongevity.
SPEAKER_01 (04:20):
And Fass himself said this was a big deal.
He testified he was pleased withit, that it gave him a degree of
security.
He felt it showed the hospitalwas planning on keeping him long
term.
SPEAKER_00 (04:30):
And that testimony is what grounds his expectation.
In a field like cardiology,these kinds of contracts are a
sign that the institution isinvesting heavily in retaining
top talent, often well intotheir traditional retirement
years.
SPEAKER_01 (04:43):
Let's talk about performance because Northwell
never said he was a bad doctor.
His pay was tied to this metric: work relative value units or (04:46):
undefined
WRVUs.
SPEAKER_00 (04:52):
Right, WRVUs.
We should probably explain whatthose are.
It's basically a standardizedmeasure across healthcare to
quantify how productive a doctoris.
It's linked to billing codes.
The more complex the work, themore patients you see, the
higher your WRVUs.
It's a direct line to revenue.
SPEAKER_01 (05:06):
And the initial target for him and his two
partners back in 2013 was acollective 25,000 WRVUs a year.
A pretty substantial amount ofwork.
SPEAKER_00 (05:14):
A very significant volume.
And on top of that, hisprofessional reputation was just
stellar.
In 2017, at age 63, he getsappointed director of medicine
at the hospital.
SPEAKER_01 (05:24):
So he's taking on administrative duties.
SPEAKER_00 (05:26):
Big ones.
Recruiting physicians,organizing committees.
It took up about 20% of histime.
And even his bosses, like Dr.
Varender Singh, a senior VP atNorthwell, called him a legend
and a very good doctor.
The praise was documented.
SPEAKER_01 (05:40):
And there's a classic problem there, right?
You get promoted intomanagement, which is
prestigious, but it eats intoyour clinical time.
SPEAKER_00 (05:45):
It eats into your WRVUs.
The system is asking you totrade raw production for
institutional leadership.
SPEAKER_01 (05:51):
Aaron Powell Which brings us to the 2019 contract.
FAS is 66 now.
It's a new three-year agreement,and it actually accounts for his
administrative work by loweringthat commitment to 10% of his
time.
But that security mechanism, itwas still there.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (06:05):
Yes.
This is the second anchor forhis expectations.
The 2019 deal still had anautomatic renewal clause, this
time for one-year terms, butstill renewal was the default.
And again, FAST testified thiswas important to him.
SPEAKER_01 (06:19):
So from 2013 all the way to 2022, we see a clear,
consistent pattern.
A decade of multi-year contractswhere the default is
continuation, not termination.
That's the baseline.
SPEAKER_00 (06:29):
That's the baseline that Northwell then tries to
abruptly dismantle, which takesus right into section two.
The crossroads.
This is where the subtlegroundwork for that dismantling
begins.
SPEAKER_01 (06:41):
The first hint of this, this succession planning
idea, comes in an email inSeptember 2019.
It's from Dr.
Zimmerman, FASS partner.
SPEAKER_00 (06:50):
Right.
And this is a critical point ofdispute.
Zimmerman emails Northwellexecutives about recruiting a
new cardiologist, and he usesthe phrase succession planning.
Northwell later points to thisas proof that the doctors
themselves started theretirement talk.
SPEAKER_01 (07:04):
But Fass had a totally different take on it.
SPEAKER_00 (07:06):
A completely different take.
He testified that Zimmerman wasspeaking for himself.
Fass said yes, they needed a newdoctor, but only because the
practice was simply too busy.
It was about growth, not aboutreplacing him.
SPEAKER_01 (07:18):
And that's a huge difference in interpretation.
Is this hiring for growth or isit hiring for his exit?
SPEAKER_00 (07:23):
The whole case hinges on questions like that.
Now, fast forward to late 2022.
The 2019 contract hadautomatically renewed, so he's
on that rolling one-year term.
And now Northwell executives,including a new chair of
cardiology, Dr.
Binoy Singh, start asking FASSabout his long-term plans.
SPEAKER_01 (07:41):
And this is where they create the leverage.
October 7th, 2022.
An email goes around to theexecutives with two proposed
options for FASS's nextcontract.
SPEAKER_00 (07:50):
And this is the moment of the false choice.
We have to break these twooptions down because they are
the legal engine of his wholepretext claim.
SPEAKER_01 (07:58):
Okay.
Option hashtag one.
What was that?
SPEAKER_00 (08:00):
Option hashtag one was the one Northwell clearly
wanted him to take.
Internally, and this is soimportant, they labeled it the
career completion contract.
SPEAKER_01 (08:08):
Wow.
They actually wrote that down.
SPEAKER_00 (08:10):
They wrote it down in an email.
It was for a fixed,non-renewable one-year term.
And it came with a much lighterpart-time schedule, only
expecting about 2,900 WRVUs.
SPEAKER_01 (08:19):
Okay.
And option hashtag two.
SPEAKER_00 (08:20):
Option hashtag two was labeled the full-time
renewal.
It was a full-time schedule witha clinical-based salary, but and
this is the kicker, it came withan expectation of 7,785 annual
WRVUs.
SPEAKER_01 (08:32):
Wait, 7,785.
Let's put that in perspective.
The target for all threepartners back in 2013 was
25,000.
So almost 8,000 for one personis a huge solo commitment.
SPEAKER_00 (08:45):
It's massive.
And this is where theoperational reality collides
with the legal claim.
Remember, FAS still has his 10%administrative duties as
director of medicine.
He's teaching residents.
SPEAKER_01 (08:55):
Those aren't billable WRVUs.
SPEAKER_00 (08:57):
Exactly.
Those activities, which arevital to Northwell's mission,
don't generate WRVUs.
FASS testified he was alreadyworking at maximum capacity.
To hit that 7,785 target on topof everything else, I mean it
would be like working 120% of afull-time schedule.
He said it was impossible.
SPEAKER_01 (09:14):
So he's caught.
SPEAKER_00 (09:21):
Right.
Or a non-renewable contract thatguarantees his exit in one year.
He felt he did not have achoice.
He felt he was being forced intothe part-time dead-end contract.
SPEAKER_01 (09:29):
And the internal emails back this up.
One of the executives, a Dr.
Gotlock, sends an email to thegroup.
SPEAKER_00 (09:34):
Yes, and this email is just a gift to the
plaintiff's lawyers.
He writes that he's okay withwhichever plaintiff accepts, but
then he adds this line.
Although I think it's clear tomost of us that option one
seemingly makes most sense.
SPEAKER_01 (09:48):
So they're documenting their own
preference.
They're steering him toward thecareer completion contract.
SPEAKER_00 (09:54):
That's the argument.
That email transforms a supposedchoice into a management
recommendation.
They were already viewing this69-year-old doctor through the
lens of career completion.
They had already decided hispath.
SPEAKER_01 (10:06):
But let me play devil's advocate for a second.
They still offered him thefull-time option.
Why didn't he just take it andthen try to negotiate the WRVU
target down?
Isn't that on him?
SPEAKER_00 (10:16):
That's Northwell's defense, of course.
But the court looks at thetotality of the circumstances.
They were pressuring him tochoose quickly.
Dr.
Varinder Singh replied to oneemail saying, sooner the better,
we need a decision.
When you combine that pressurewith the impossible metric, a
jury can infer that they knewexactly what they were doing.
SPEAKER_01 (10:33):
They created a scenario where any rational
person would see option two as asetup for failure.
SPEAKER_00 (10:39):
Leaving option one as the only path to short-term
stability.
So Fass signs it, December 28,2022.
But he's not happy about that norenewal clause.
It's a huge break from hisentire history.
SPEAKER_01 (10:54):
And this next part is maybe the single most
important dispute in the wholecase.
It's what saves him from summaryjudgment.
SPEAKER_00 (11:00):
It is.
Fass testified that when heraised his concerns about the
non-renewal part to Dr.
Benoit Singh, he was led tobelieve the situation would be
readdressed during the course ofthe following year.
SPEAKER_01 (11:11):
But he admits there was no explicit promise, right?
No handshake deal, no, don'tworry, we'll renew you.
SPEAKER_00 (11:16):
Correct.
Northwell denies any suchimplication was ever made.
But for the purpose of a summaryjudgment motion, the court has
to take FASS testimony as true.
His subjective belief that thecontract's clear words were
softened by this vague promiseto talk later is just enough to
create that triable issue.
SPEAKER_01 (11:34):
So a jury has to decide who was telling the truth
in that conversation.
SPEAKER_00 (11:37):
Exactly.
And what's really telling iswhat Northwell did internally
right after he signed.
They immediately start planningto initiate, develop practice
transition strategy, and discussrecruitment.
SPEAKER_01 (11:47):
Which is both their defense and potentially the
proof of their intent.
SPEAKER_00 (11:51):
Aaron Powell It's a double-edged sword.
It shows they were makingbusiness decisions based on his
contract choice.
But it also supports Fass'sargument that they had already
decided he was retiring, andthis was just the mechanism to
make it happen, regardless ofwhat he wanted.
SPEAKER_01 (12:04):
And that fuse they lit in late 2022 burns all the
way to August 2023.
This brings us to section three: the refusal and the argument (12:10):
undefined
over adverse action.
SPEAKER_00 (12:15):
Yes, the confrontation.
Fass, now turning 70, decidesit's time to have that
conversation he thought waspromised.
He goes into Dr.
Benoit Singh's office and askswhat his employment will look
like after 2023.
SPEAKER_01 (12:26):
And the answer is just blunt.
SPEAKER_00 (12:28):
Incredibly blunt.
Dr.
Singh just confirms hisemployment ends December 31st.
And Fass is, in his words,incredulous, taken aback and
extremely upset.
SPEAKER_01 (12:37):
The testimony includes him yelling, You're not
gonna fuck me.
That's not the reaction ofsomeone who expected their
contract to end.
SPEAKER_00 (12:44):
Not at all.
And what's more, his partner,Dr.
Zerman, was in the room and wasalso incredulous.
He reportedly asked Dr.
Singh, You don't really mean todo that, do you?
If this was all just the naturalexpected end of a contract, why
would they both be so shocked?
SPEAKER_01 (12:59):
Right after this confrontation, the pressure to
officially call it a retirementstarts to build.
SPEAKER_00 (13:04):
It does.
A VP, Mrs.
Hathaway Rosseter, talks toFess, and in her own notes, she
documents that he asked herpoint blank if the non-renewal
was because of his age.
SPEAKER_01 (13:14):
And what was her response?
SPEAKER_00 (13:15):
Her immediate response was to ask him if he
would consider retiring butcontinuing to teach residents in
a voluntary capacity.
SPEAKER_01 (13:23):
So unpaid.
After he just raised the issueof age discrimination, they ask
him to work for free.
SPEAKER_00 (13:28):
It sends a terrible message.
It suggests they value hisexpertise only if it costs them
nothing.
Then, in a September meeting,the executives repeatedly asked
him to write a letter to hispatients saying he was retiring.
SPEAKER_01 (13:40):
And he refused.
He said, I'm not retiring.
That's your decision, not mine.
He drew a very clear line.
This was involuntary.
SPEAKER_00 (13:48):
But Northwell just went ahead anyway.
In November, they sent lettersto his patients announcing he
was ending his storied tenureand listing other doctors they
could see.
They created the retirementnarrative they wanted,
completely overriding hiswishes.
SPEAKER_01 (14:01):
So Northwell's defense to the court was what?
What were their legitimatereasons?
unknown (14:06):
Dr.
SPEAKER_00 (14:06):
Varinder Singh laid out two main points.
First, FASS made his choice.
He signed the one-year deal, andthey were simply holding him to
his decision.
It was a business deal.
SPEAKER_01 (14:16):
Okay, that's sounds plausible.
What was the second reason?
SPEAKER_00 (14:19):
Second, Singh said he had a vision of a program
that required recruitingcardiologists with specific
specialties and long-termcommitments.
Since FASS chose the shortone-year term, Singh took FASS
out of that vision.
He argued that if FASS had takenthe three-year deal, he would
have been part of the plan.
SPEAKER_01 (14:36):
That sounds like a very strong, logical business
argument.
SPEAKER_00 (14:40):
It is.
It's the core of their motion.
They even offered him anextension of his administrative
role, which he turned downbecause he wanted his clinical
job back, so they could arguethey were trying to accommodate
him.
SPEAKER_01 (14:50):
Which brings us to the legal fight.
Section four.
The legal showdown.
This is where the court picksapart that very plausible story.
SPEAKER_00 (14:59):
Aaron Powell To understand this, we have to look
at the McDonnell Douglasframework.
It's the three-step legal testfor discrimination cases.
SPEAKER_01 (15:06):
Aaron Powell Step one is the employee has to show
a basic or prima facie case.
SPEAKER_00 (15:10):
Right.
You're in a protected class over40, you're qualified, you
suffered an adverse action, andthere's some inference of
discrimination.
SPEAKER_01 (15:18):
Step two, the burden shifts to the employer to give a
legitimate, non-discriminatoryreason.
SPEAKER_00 (15:23):
Aaron Powell Which Northwell did.
The contract, the programmaticvision.
SPEAKER_01 (15:27):
Step three, the birdie shifts back to the
employee to prove that reasonwas just a pretext, a cover
story, and that age was the realbut for cause.
SPEAKER_00 (15:35):
Aaron Powell Exactly.
And Northwell's first attack wason step one.
They argued this wasn't even anadverse employment action.
SPEAKER_01 (15:42):
Aaron Powell How could ending a 40-year career
not be an adverse action?
SPEAKER_00 (15:46):
Their argument was that it was just the natural end
of a contract he chose.
A contract with no renewalclause.
Therefore, he had no reasonableexpectation of renewal, so
legally nothing adversehappened.
SPEAKER_01 (15:58):
But the court didn't buy that.
SPEAKER_00 (16:00):
Not at all.
They cited a key precedent,Leibowitz v.
Cornell, which says non-renewalcan be an adverse action.
And they said Fass's testimony,that he was led to believe
renewal would be discussed, wasenough to establish a reasonable
expectation, at least for thisearly stage of the case.
SPEAKER_01 (16:18):
So he clears that first hurdle.
Northwell easily clears thesecond with their business
reasons.
So it all comes down to stepthree, pretext.
SPEAKER_00 (16:26):
The whole ballgame.
And Northwell hammered the pointthat Fass had no direct
evidence.
In his deposition, he literallysaid, I have no other
explanation for why thishappened, other than his age.
They argued that that's just asubjective feeling, not proof.
SPEAKER_01 (16:39):
But this is where the court connects all the dots,
all the little pieces ofcircumstantial evidence.
SPEAKER_00 (16:43):
The court weaves them into a single compelling
narrative that a jury couldbelieve, and they lay it out
point by point.
SPEAKER_01 (16:49):
First, the timing.
They started asking about hisretirement before they even
offered him the contracts.
SPEAKER_00 (16:55):
Second, the language, that internal label,
the career completion contract.
That's a huge piece of evidenceabout their state of mind.
It's legally toxic.
SPEAKER_01 (17:05):
Third, the false choice itself, offering a
long-term option with animpossible performance target.
A jury could easily see that asa setup.
SPEAKER_00 (17:14):
Fourth, the pressure.
Sooner the better.
We need a decision.
They wanted him locked into thatshort-term deal so they could
move on.
SPEAKER_01 (17:21):
Fifth, the immediate planning for his transition as
soon as he signed.
And finally, the aggressive pushfor him to call it a retirement.
SPEAKER_00 (17:29):
Exactly.
When you add it all up, thecourt said a reasonable jury
could see this as Northwellsystematically maneuvering him
into retirement.
Not just honoring a contract,but engineering an outcome.
SPEAKER_01 (17:40):
But what about Northwell's best defense, the
same actor presumption?
SPEAKER_00 (17:44):
Right.
This is a strong legal shieldfor employers.
The idea is if the same personwho hired or contracted with
you, knowing your age, is thesame person who makes the
adverse decision, it's unlikelythat age was the reason.
SPEAKER_01 (17:56):
And here, Dr.
Varinder Singh approved theone-year deal knowing Foss was
69, and he was the ultimatedecision maker not to renew it.
That seems to fit perfectly.
SPEAKER_00 (18:06):
It does, but the court said the presumption is
permissive, not mandatory.
And they made a really cleverdistinction about advancing age.
SPEAKER_01 (18:14):
What does that mean?
SPEAKER_00 (18:15):
It means a jury could find that while Dr.
Singh was okay hiring a69-year-old for one more year,
he wasn't okay with that sameperson turning 70 and continuing
to be part of the long-termprogrammatic vision.
SPEAKER_01 (18:27):
Aaron Powell So it's the difference between he's old
but fine for now, and okay, nowhe's too old for our future
plans.
SPEAKER_00 (18:34):
Precisely.
The programmatic vision itselfcould be seen as a cover for a
decision based on his advancingage.
SPEAKER_01 (18:41):
So in the end, the judge acknowledges that Foss's
case is on thin ice because somuch of it hangs on his word
against theirs about that oneconversation.
SPEAKER_00 (18:48):
Aaron Powell It all comes down to a classic he said
he believed credibility fight.
Did Dr.
Sing mislead him or did Dr.
Foss misunderstand?
And because only a jury candecide who's more believable by
listening to them testify, thejudge had to deny summary
judgment.
SPEAKER_01 (19:02):
The court's job is issue identification, not issue
resolution.
They found the central issue,and now it's up to a jury to
resolve it.
SPEAKER_00 (19:10):
And the lesson there is that your internal conduct,
your emails, your labels cancompletely empower an employee's
subjective perception and blowup the cleanest contract you
have.
SPEAKER_01 (19:20):
So synthesizing all of this, what's the key lesson
here?
SPEAKER_00 (19:24):
I think the key lesson is that in these age
discrimination cases, especiallywith fixed-term contracts, the
internal chatter mattersimmensely.
A label like career completioncontract or creating an
impossible choice can completelyovercome the legal protections
an employer thinks they have.
SPEAKER_01 (19:41):
The documentation just betrayed them.
They might have had a legitimatevision, but the way they
executed it, by pushing theretirement narrative and using
that loaded language, createdall the evidence a plaintiff
needs to get to a jury.
SPEAKER_00 (19:52):
It's a masterclass in what not to do.
If you have a legitimate,non-discriminatory plan, you
have to execute it with absoluteconsistency and clarity.
The moment you start talkingabout retirement or using exit
focused language with an olderemployee, you are handing them
the building blocks for alawsuit.
SPEAKER_01 (20:09):
So what happens now?
The court has set a conferencefor September 2025 and told the
lawyers to discuss settlement ingood faith, which leads to our
final.
Final provocative thought.
SPEAKER_00 (20:20):
How likely is it that Northwell actually risks
this going to a jury?
A jury that is just going to bedeciding who they believe about
a conversation from years ago.
This denial of summary judgmentcompletely changes the leverage.
They're now staring down thebarrel of a very unpredictable
trial where the jury's feelingsabout fairness might matter a
lot more than the fine print ina contract.
(20:41):
The pressure to settle is nowimmense.
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.