161 F. Supp. 3d 136
D. Mass.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Serkan Cabi, Isin Cakir, and Safak Mert are post-doctoral fellows in Ozcan's laboratory at Boston Children's Hospital (BCH).
- Ozcan is a principal investigator at BCH; Majzoub is his division chief; Fenwick is BCH President and CEO; Garvin is BCH General Counsel; Ozcan also serves as a director at ERX Pharmaceuticals.
- Plaintiffs conducted obesity/diabetes research with claims of data fabrication that allegedly appeared in SR01 and SR02 patent applications and manuscripts.
- Plaintiffs allege Ozcan forced fabrication and threatened retaliation; he allegedly created a hostile environment with racist/sexist remarks and coercive conduct.
- Plaintiffs reported misconduct to BCH management in March 2014; BCH promised an independent investigation and reassignment, later allegedly failing to follow through and removing plaintiffs from certain projects and inventorship.
- After reporting, Plaintiffs allege BCH and Ozcan engaged in retaliation, including cutting off resources, revoking authorship and inventorship, and ultimately terminating employment; spoliation of notebooks and restricted access to records is also alleged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1983 claims against BCH and individuals survive as private actors | Plaintiffs argue private BCH acted under color of state law via funding, public function, and quasi-public collaborations. | Defendants contend private actions cannot be state actors under these tests and Bivens does not apply. | § 1983 claims dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Massachusetts MCRA claims under c.12 § 111 survive | Plaintiffs contend BCH/Ozcan/Majzoub threatened/coerced retaliation interfering with constitutional and state rights. | Defendants argue no actionable state action requirement for MCRA; some defendants’ conduct lacks coercion. | MCRA claims against BCH, Ozcan, Majzoub survive; Fenwick and Garvin dismissed |
| Whether Title VII hostile work environment claim against BCH survives | Plaintiffs allege Turkish nationality and repeated racist/sexist commentary created harassing environment; supervisor liability alleged. | Defendants contend no hostile environment or that conduct is not sufficiently severe or pervasive against BCH. | Hostile work environment claim against BCH survives |
| Whether Mass. Gen. L. c. 151B hostile environment and retaliation claims survive | Plaintiffs plead pervasive harassment and retaliation linked to protected classes (Turkish/ethnicity/race/sex). | Defendants argue insufficiently pleaded grounds or lack of state action for several counts. | C. 151B hostile environment survives against BCH and Ozcan; retaliation survives under some theories; others dismissed |
| Whether lawful retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and c. 149 § 185 survive | Plaintiffs claim protected activity caused adverse actions; race-based retaliation asserted. | Argues lack of state action for §1981 and statutory employer definition for §149. | §1981 retaliation survives against BCH, Ozcan, Majzoub; §149 claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- García-Catalán v. United States, 734 F.3d 100 (1st Cir. 2013) (two-step plausibility standard for 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must contain more than mere conclusory statements)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Estades-Negroni v. CPC Hosp. San Juan Capestrano, 412 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (state action tests for private party conduct)
- Hoover v. Suffolk Univ. Law Sch., 27 F.3d 554 (1st Cir. 1994) (federal funding alone not state action)
- Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1998) (employer liability for supervisor-created hostile environment)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (harassment based on protected class can be actionable even among same-race individuals)
- Fantini v. Salem State Coll., 557 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (no individual liability under Title VII for employers)