328 F. Supp. 3d 106
W.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Popat, a physician formerly a University at Buffalo faculty member, sued Dr. Elad Levy, UBNS (University at Buffalo Neurosurgery, Inc.), the University/SUNY Buffalo and its Medical School, and Kaleida for alleged race/national-origin discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, §1981/§1983 claims, NYSHRL violations, and tortious interference.
- Key factual allegations: Dr. Levy (a University professor and UBNS/Kaleida physician) made racially charged remarks during surgery; Popat complained in writing to the Medical School dean and Kaleida; shortly after the complaint, Dr. Levy terminated Popat’s University faculty position.
- Popat asserts UBNS and Kaleida were functionally employers (single‑integrated or joint employer theories) of his University role and participated in billing, staffing, training, and discipline.
- Procedurally: Defendants moved to dismiss. The Court previously dismissed some claims without prejudice and allowed amendment; the current decision resolves renewed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.
- Rulings in brief: UBNS’ and Dr. Levy’s motions were largely denied except dismissal of one tortious‑interference theory against UBNS; University and Medical School’s motions were granted in full (most state‑law and §1981/§1983 claims dismissed on Eleventh Amendment and §1983 personhood grounds); Kaleida’s motion was denied on state‑action grounds but its tortious‑interference claims were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UBNS is an "employer" under Title VII/NYSHRL (joint/single employer) | UBNS and University jointly controlled Popat’s work: staffing, billing, supervision, termination, and training duties so UBNS is a joint employer | UBNS contends the complaint relies on isolated conduct and fails to plausibly allege employer status or joint‑employer indicia | Court refused to apply broad single‑employer theory where state actor involved, found plaintiff plausibly alleged joint‑employer indicia; Title VII/NYSHRL claims against UBNS survive dismissal at pleading stage |
| Whether Popat exhausted administrative remedies as to UBNS (EEOC charge naming) | Identity‑of‑interest exception applies because UBNS presented itself as part of the University/Medical School and cooperates in investigations | UBNS says it was not named in EEOC and was prejudiced; exhaustion required | Court adhered to its prior view: unresolved on motion to dismiss; identity‑of‑interest question cannot be resolved pre‑discovery and Title VII claims against UBNS not dismissed for failure to exhaust |
| Whether §1983 claims adequately allege state action (Dr. Levy, UBNS, Kaleida) | Dr. Levy is a state actor (SUNY professor); UBNS and Kaleida are so entwined with the University that private entities acted under color of state law | Defendants argue private entities lack state‑action; no close nexus/entwinement | Court held Dr. Levy is a state actor; allegations of pervasive entwinement/plural public‑private overlap plausibly allege UBNS and Kaleida acted under color of state law, so §1983 claims against them survive pleading challenge |
| Whether tortious interference claims are sufficiently pleaded (contracts, wrongful means, breach/damage) | Popat alleges oral agreements (with UBNS, Dr. Leonardo, Delaware Medical Group) and that defendants ceased referrals, pressured others, and induced breaches | Defendants argue Popat fails to plead an actual breach (for contracts) or wrongful means/proximate injury (for prospective relations) | Court dismissed tortious‑interference with a specific alleged contract (Plaintiff–Dr. Leonardo) as to UBNS for lack of pleaded breach; otherwise claim vs. Dr. Levy re: UBNS specialty practice survives; Kaleida’s tortious‑interference claims dismissed in full for failure to plead breach or wrongful means/proximate injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading requirements and drawing inferences)
- Gulino v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep't, 460 F.3d 361 (limits on single‑employer doctrine; control focus)
- Community for Creative Non‑Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (factors for employment/control analysis)
- Arculeo v. On‑Site Sales & Mktg., LLC, 425 F.3d 193 (discussion of single vs. joint employer doctrines)
- Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., Inc., 355 F.3d 61 (factors for joint‑employer/economic realities analysis)
- Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S. 288 (entwinement/close‑nexus state‑action doctrine)
- Will v. Michigan Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (States/officials in official capacity are not "persons" under §1983)