Popat v. Levy et al
Filing
85
DECISION AND ORDER granting in part UBNS' and Dr. Levy's 63 Motion to Dismiss to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's sixth cause of action against UBNS for tortious interference with contractual relations based upon the alle ged interference with the contract between Plaintiff and Dr. Leonardo, but it is otherwise denied; granting the University and the Medical School's 65 Motion to Dismiss; and granting in part Kaleida's 67 Motion to Dismiss to the extent it requests dismissal of Plaintiff's sixth cause of action, but it is otherwise denied. Signed by Hon. Elizabeth A. Wolford on 09/17/2018. (DPS)
^ SEP 1 7 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
j'-^j
r
^^^ilDISTRlCt os-^
SAURIN POPAT, M.D.,
DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
1:15-CV-0I052EAW
V.
ELAD LEVY, M.D., et al.,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Saurin Popat, M.D. ("Plaintiff) asserts various claims arising out of his
past and present employment relationships against five defendants:(1) Elad Levy, M.D.
("Dr. Levy"); (2) The State University of New York at Buffalo (the "University");
(3) University at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences (the "Medical
School");(4)Kaleida flealth ("Kaleida"); and(5) University at Buffalo Neurosurgery, Inc.
("UBNS")(collectively, "Defendants"). (Dkt. 60 at 3-5). Plaintiff alleges violations of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., 42
U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the New York State Human Rights Taw, New York Executive
Law §§ 290, et seq. (the "NYSHRL"),the United States Constitution, the New York State
Constitution, and New York State common law. {Id. at
1). He raises six claims:(1)race
and national origin discrimination and hostile work environment under Title VII;
(2) retaliation under Title VII; (3) discrimination and retaliation under the NYSHRL;
(4) discrimination and retaliation under § 1981;(5) discrimination and retaliation under
- 1 -
§ 1983; and(6)toitious interference with contract, employment, and prospective economic
advantage. {Id. at 13-18).
Presently before the Court are UBNS' and Dr. Levy's motion to dismiss all of
Plaintiffs claims, except those arising under § 1981, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6)(Dkt. 63); the University and the Medical School's motion to dismiss
all of Plaintiffs claims, except those arising under Title VII, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6)(Dkt. 65); and Kaleida's motion to dismiss all of Plaintiffs claims pursuant
to Rule 41(b), and, in the alternative, its motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims arising under
§ 1983 and New York common law(Dkt.67). For the reasons set forth below,UBNS'and
Dr. Levy's motion is granted in part and denied in part, the University and the Medical
School's motion is granted, and Kaleida's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from the second amended complaint and assumed to
be true for purposes ofthis motion.
I.
Factual Background
The University controls and operates the Medical School and the University at
Buffalo Neurosurgery Group ("UBNG"). (Dkt. 60 at T| 11). The UBNG is "an academic
neurosurgical group comprised of physicians and other healthcare employees who are part
of the University's 'UBMD Physicians Group,' which boasts more than 500 doctors...
practicing medicine and teaching medical students and residents at[the]... Medical School
2-
and in area hospitals, including Kaleida facilities."' {Id.). The UBMD Physicians Group,
also known as UBMD, Inc., "provides marketing services to other physician practice
groups associated with the University, including[UBNS]." {Id. at 112). "UBNS is a New
York not-for-profit corporation associated with the University, providing academic support
and is a clinician care component for the University." {Id. at T| 13). Like UBNG, UBNS
is part of the UBMD Physicians Group. {Id. at Tf 15). Kaleida "is a large healthcare
provider in Western New York" that "operates several hospitals and surgical facilities."
{Id. at ^ 17). Kaleida's neurosurgeons are all associated with the University, and Kaleida
publicly identifies Plaintiff as "a Kaleida Health physician." {Id.).
With the exclusion of Dr. Levy, Defendants "have one or more agreements with
each other defining their relationship and interrelation of operations." {Id. at ^ 14). These
agreements allegedly cover the management of "surgical training . . . for University
medical students and clinical medical treatment for their joint patients," which includes
"billing and expenses." {Id.). "UBNS never identified itself... as an entity separate or
distinct from the University[,]" and the University frequently "works cooperatively or in a
parent relationship to UBNS in investigating [discrimination] complaints." {Id. at
15-
16). Dr. Levy is "a Caucasian individual .. . employed by the University, UBNS, and
Kaleida." {Id. at ^ 18). He is a University professor, a physician with UBNG and UBNS,
Chief of Neurosurgery at Kaleida, and Co-Director of Kaleida Health Stroke Center and
Cerebrovascular surgery. {Id.).
'
UBNG and the UBMD Physicians Group are not parties to this action.
-3 -
Plaintiff is of African and Southeast Asian origin and a doctor currently employed
in Buffalo, New York, by the Delaware Medical Group, P.C., as its Director of Head and
Neck/Skull Base Surgery. {Id. at
9, 32-33). He was previously employed by the
University as a faculty member in the Departments of Neurosurgery and Otolaryngology
at the Medical School. {Id. at ^ 34). The University compensated him and had the power
to terminate his employment. {Id. at
35-36). He was "also considered an employee of
Kaleida" because Kaleida gave him certain privileges and asserted direction and control
over his work performance. {Id. at 137). Plaintiff received patient referrals from doctors
employed by the University, UBNS,and Kaleida. {Id. at ^ 39).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants should be considered his functional employers
under the single integrated employer doctrine, the joint employer doctrine, or the
interference liability doctrine. {Id. at ^ 19). First, Plaintiff alleges that "the University,
UBNS, and Kaleida, nominally separate entities, are actually part of a single integrated
enterprise." {Id. at ^ 21). These entities work together "to provide surgical services for
medical training purposes," and they "jointly hired [Dr. Levy]" to fulfill this objective and
delegated to him "the power and control to hire and fire other doctors and staff." {Id.).
Furthermore, UBNS "is under common ownership and management with the University,"
and is "organized as a separate not-for-profit corporation" only to comply with regulatory
requirements. {Id. at ^ 22).
Plaintiff points to one surgical training procedure as an example of the integrated
activities ofthe University, UBNS,and Kaleida:
4-
[Dr. Levy] directed the location for the surgery to be [at] Kaleida;[Dr. Levy]
had the surgery scheduled at Kaleida; [Dr. Levy] selected the doctors to
perform the surgery, including Plaintiff; [Dr. Levy] directed that medical
students form [sic] the University and [M]edical [S]chool be present for
training via the surgery; [Dr. Levy] directed a specific protocol for the
surgery, including what each doctor and staff member and medical student
present was or was not to do during the surgery and the order of events that
would occur within the surgery;[Dr. Levy] controlled the process for billing
for the surgery and how each doctor was to be compensated; and [Dr. Levy]
subsequently terminated Plaintiffs University faculty position.
{Id. atTf23).
Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that if the University, UBNS, and Kaleida are not a
single integrated enterprise, then they should be considered his employers under the joint
employer doctrine. {Id. at^ 24). Specifically, Plaintiffclaims that Dr. Levy appointed him
to a position in the University where he"was expected to train University medical students"
at "Kaleida surgical operation facilities." {Id. at f 25). These trainings occurred while
Plaintiff engaged in surgeries alongside UBNS doctors, such as Dr. Levy, and were
directed by UBNS and Dr. Levy. {Id.). Dr. Levy terminated Plaintifffrom his position for
"allegedly not following [Dr. Levy's] surgery protocol for the operation and for allegedly
attempting to reschedule that surgery." {Id.). Dr.Levy controlled the operation "on behalf
of UBNS and/or Kaleida," and "all billings and compensation for the operation had to be
submitted and coordinated through UBNS and Kaleida." {Id.). Finally, Plaintiff also
alleges that the "interference liability theory" applies in this case because the University
"delegated its responsibility and duty of selecting, hiring, firing, managing[,] and
scheduling its faculty members for training and teaching experiences to UBNS." {Id. at
127).
-5-
Plaintiff alleges that the University, UBNS, and Kaleida allowed Dr. Levy "to
engage in severe and pervasive discrimination against women and people of color," and
"to retaliate against Plaintiff for having complained ofthese wrongful acts." {Id. at ^ 40).
He also alleges that those defendants "interfered with his employment with the University,
Kaleida, and Delaware Medical Group." {Id.). Plaintiff further alleges that "[Dr. Levy]
engaged in severe and pervasive harassment toward Plaintiff due to his race and national
origin, and he has otherwise created a hostile work environment for dark-skinned
employees." (/
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?