Belton v. Borg & Ide Imaging, P.C., 18-CV-6776L

• Decision Date: 12 January 2021
• Docket Number: 18-CV-6776L
• Citation: 512 F.Supp.3d 433
• Parties: Ruby BELTON, M.D., Plaintiff, v. BORG & IDE IMAGING, P.C., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

512 F.Supp.3d 433

Ruby BELTON, M.D., Plaintiff,

v.BORG & IDE IMAGING, P.C., et al., Defendants.

18-CV-6776L

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed January 12, 2021

Melanie Slaughter Wolk, Lucinda Odell Lapoff, Trevett, Cristo, Salzer & Andolina P.C., Rochester, NY, for Plaintiff.

Mary Jo S. Korona, Stacey E. Trien, Adams Leclair LLP, Rochester, NY, for Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

DAVID G. LARIMER, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Ruby Belton, MD ("Belton"), brings this lawsuit against defendants Borg & Ide Imaging, P.C. ("B&I"), and Radnet, Inc. ("Radnet") (together, "defendants"), alleging claims for race-based and sex-based employment discrimination and for retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (" Section 1981"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII") and the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq. , as well as for breach of contract under New York state law relating to a settlement agreement between Belton and B&I fourteen years ago in 2006. (Dkt. # 1).¹

Pending is defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Dkt. # 13). For the following reasons, defendants’ motion is granted.

BACKGROUND ²

Dr. Ruby Belton, a 73-year-old resident of Pittsford, New York, is a radiologist and the only African American shareholder at B&I, where she specializes in "diagnostic radiology." (Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 1). She joined B&I's predecessor corporation, The Ide Group, P.C. ("Ide"), in 2004 as a physician-shareholder and employee. (Id. at ¶ 9).

Part of Belton's shareholder responsibilities with Ide originally included "providing coverage" at Park Ridge Hospital ("PRH") (now known as Unity Hospital), which is located within the greater Rochester, New York, area. (Id. at ¶ 9). In 2005 and 2006, Belton alleges that she was subjected to "racially discriminatory treatment" at PRH, causing her to file an internal complaint and charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") against PRH, Ide, and Radiologix, Inc. ("Radiologix"). (Id. ). Radiologix is the parent of Ide and the predecessor of defendant Radnet. (Id. ).

Because of these claims, Belton and Ide agreed to a "Settlement Agreement, Releases, and Covenant Not to Sue" in October 2006. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 12; see also Dkt. # 13-3 (the "2006 Settlement Agreement"³ )). The 2006 Settlement Agreement provided, among other things, that Ide would no longer schedule Belton to provide services at PRH. (Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 10; see also 2006 Settlement Agreement at ¶ 11). Because Belton's duties at PRH required her to occasionally be "on call" and/or to provide "teleradiology coverage," she agreed to "give back" a certain number of days each year to account for the fact that she would not be stationed at PRH, a number which was to be determined based on a "formula" set forth in the agreement. (Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 11; see also 2006 Settlement Agreement at ¶ 5). The 2006 Settlement Agreement also called for Ide to "adopt written procedures for reporting and responding to any complaints of harassment/unlawful discrimination." (Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 12; see also 2006 Settlement Agreement at ¶ 3). Belton alleges that Ide never implemented these procedures. (Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 12).

In "early 2017" – over ten years after Ide and Belton entered into the 2006 Settlement Agreement – Belton "began to question" how many days B&I was requiring her to "give back," as she had noticed that from 2016-2018, the number of days had increased. (Id. at ¶ 13). This "give back" calculation reduced Belton's compensation to a degree.

In response to Belton's questions, B&I provided information and explanations to clarify the increased number of "give-back" days, which neither satisfied Belton's concerns nor "match[ed] her understanding" of the 2006 Settlement Agreement. (Id. at ¶¶ 14, 15). Follow-up efforts by Belton to reconcile B&I's information with hers were unavailing. Dr. Frederick Cohn ("Cohn"), who is the CEO of B&I, however, "welcome[d] [Belton] to hire her own advisors to evaluate the data," as other shareholders had done in the past without incident. (Id. at ¶ 17). Belton then retained an attorney and an accountant to assist her in the matter. (Id. at ¶ 18).

Belton claims that B&I, and particularly Cohn, began to treat Belton with "hostility and retaliation." (Id. at ¶ 19). Specifically, during 2017 Cohn: (1) "repeated[ly]" emailed Belton "urging her to discontinue her data review and explain herself"; (2) "accused [Belton] of trying to shirk her responsibility in the practice"; (3) "threatened to call [Belton] in front of all the partners to discuss her shareholder responsibilities"; (4) suggested that Belton's job was "too onerous" for her; and (5) suggested to other shareholders, "without basis," that Belton may want to retire soon. (Id. ).

In addition, (at some unspecified time) Cohn declined to appoint Belton to certain committees at B&I and leadership roles at the practice. (Id. at ¶ 20). Specifically, Belton volunteered for the Work-flow Committee, but Cohn "de-railed this effort and instead appointed a young Caucasian male to the role." (Id. ). Cohn also "actively discouraged" Belton from serving on the Executive Committee, which she had volunteered to do "in the past." (Id. ). Furthermore, "[m]ore recently" (but again, at an unspecified time), "a young Caucasian female radiologist was selected to lead the ‘roll out’ of a new mammography

system." (Id. ). Belton was not consulted, despite her "30 years of experience and leadership in this practice area." (Id. ).

Moreover, Belton alleges that in February 2017, she was "harassed" by a Caucasian male shareholder at B&I, during which the alleged harasser "shouted at [Belton] and behaved in a threatening way verbally and physically while in the office," causing Belton to feel "concerned for her personal safety." (Id. at ¶ 21). Belton reported this incident to Cohn as "workplace harassment," and reminded him that "to [Belton's] knowledge," B&I had never implemented the reporting procedures for workplace harassment and discrimination pursuant to the 2006 Settlement Agreement. (Id. ). B&I's counsel investigated the alleged incident and interviewed Belton. (Id. at ¶ 22). B&I then proposed to remedy the situation by "re-locat[ing] Belton to a different office," one at which mammography

services were not performed, while "leaving the alleged harasser in place." (Id. ). Belton rejected the proposal and claims that B&I has never reprimanded the alleged harasser. (Id. ).

Belton eventually "became convinced" that B&I was retaliating against her for: (1) investigating B&I's compliance with the 2006 Settlement Agreement; (2) reporting workplace harassment in February 2017; and (3) filing the charge of discrimination in 2005. (Id. at ¶ 23). In Belton's view, Cohn's "tone and attitude towards her concerns was dismissive and belittling." (Id. ). Furthermore, Belton's own investigation of her compensation concerns revealed that B&I was not in compliance with the 2006 Settlement Agreement and that B&I had "unilaterally changed the computation of ‘give-back’ days without her consent," costing her thousands of dollars in compensation. (Id. at ¶ 24).

Belton thus filed a charge of race and sex discrimination and retaliation with the EEOC against B&I in September 2017, which she amended on April 28, 2018 to include Radnet (the "September 2017 EEOC Charge"). (Id. at ¶ 27).

Since filing the charge, Belton complains that B&I and its counsel have exhibited an "overall attitude" that is "discriminatory and retaliatory," and have been uncooperative in providing information she believes is relevant to her investigation of compensation concerns. (Id. at ¶¶ 28, 31, 32). According to Belton, "[o]ther shareholders (upon information and belief, non-female and non-African American) have sought outside review of the same type of data and have not been treated in this manner." (Id. at ¶ 30). B&I's "intimidation" towards Belton, in her view, is "retaliation for taking her complaint to the EEOC." (Id. at ¶ 28).

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard on a Motion to Dismiss

To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ " Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. In deciding a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Trs. of Upstate New York Eng'rs Pension Fund v. Ivy Asset Mgmt. , 843 F.3d 561, 566 (2d Cir. 2016), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 2279, 198 L.Ed.2d 703 (2017). A court may also "consider any written instrument attached to the [c]omplaint as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference." City of Pontiac Policemen's & Firemen's Ret. Sys. v. UBS AG , 752 F.3d 173, 179 (2d Cir. 2014) (alterations and quotations omitted).

II. Title VII ⁴

Title VII contains both anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation provisions. The statute makes it unlawful for an employer to "discriminate against any individual with respect to h[er] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). It also precludes an employer from "discriminat[ing...