Patil v. University of Oklahoma Board of Regents

Filing 14

ORDER denying defendant's 11 motion to dismiss...see order for specifics. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 5/11/2016. (cla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RACHIT PATIL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA d/b/a
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-15-1295-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff Rachit Patil (“Patil”) was a resident physician in the pediatric residency
program at the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine. His residency was terminated
in November 2013, and he has now filed suit against defendant Board of Regents of the
University of Oklahoma d/b/a University of Oklahoma College of Medicine (“OU”), alleging
harassment, retaliation, and discrimination based on national origin, gender, and race. OU
has moved to dismiss the complaint on the bases of failure to exhaust administrative remedies
and failure to state a claim.
Patil filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission on December 16, 2013. OU does not appear to challenge the alleged fact that
plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies as to the dismissal. Rather, it apparently
seeks to dismiss some of the factual background allegations included in the petition.
However, there is no indication that those allegations are anything other than allegations of
background or evidentiary facts. They do not reflect an effort to assert some discrete or

separate claim from the dismissal and there is nothing improper about reciting background
facts. See Smothers v. Solvay Chemicals, Inc., 740 F.3d 530, 543–44 (10th Cir. 2014)
(“Even when an incident of alleged employer discrimination or retaliation does not support
an independent retaliation claim, it may be relevant as background evidence in a pretext
inquiry.”). Insofar as OU’s motion asserts a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, it
will be denied.
In evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the
court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and views them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff as the nonmoving party. S.E.C. v. Shields, 744 F.3d 633, 640 (10th
Cir. 2014). The complaint need only present “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). It must, however,
contain enough factual allegations “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
OU asserts that its medical residency program is a “hybrid academic and employment
relationship,” Doc. No. 11, p. 7, and that because its decision to terminate Patil’s residency
was academic in nature, his claims, asserting discrimination and retaliation in employment,
must be dismissed. Of course, whether the decision to terminate plaintiff was in fact based
on academic factors or whether it was based on an impermissible basis, as plaintiff suggests,
is what this case is about. The court cannot simply assume the accuracy of OU’s version of
what motivated its decision. Whatever impact the hybrid nature of the relationship may have
on the ultimate disposition of the case, it is not a basis for dismissing plaintiff’s claims now.
2

See Munoz v. St. Mary-Corwin Hosp., 221 F.3d 1160, 1165–68 (10th Cir. 2000) and Shah
v. Okla., 485 F. App’x 971, 973–75 (10th Cir. 2012) (both assuming, without discussion, that
Title VII applies in the residency/educational context). The claims are otherwise sufficiently
pled.
Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Doc. #11] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 11th day of May, 2016.

3