Banerjee v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 31 July 1986
• Docket Number: Civ. No. H-84-1061(JAC).
• Citation: 641 F. Supp. 1093
• Parties: Sankar Nath BANERJEE, v. Melville P. ROBERTS, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut

641 F. Supp. 1093

Sankar Nath BANERJEE, v.Melville P. ROBERTS, et al.

Civ. No. H-84-1061(JAC).

United States District Court, D. Connecticut.

July 31, 1986.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Julia L. Aurigemma, F. Patrick O'Sullivan, Hartford, Conn., for plaintiff.

John F. Scully, Jeffrey Pingpank, Hartford, Conn., for defendant Roberts in his individual capacity.

William N. Kleinman, Asst. Atty.Gen., Farmington, Conn., Paul M. Shapiro, Asst. Atty.Gen., Storrs, Conn. (Joseph I. Lieberman, Atty.Gen., Hartford, Conn., of counsel), for trusteedefendants and for defendant Roberts in his official capacity.

RULING ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JOSÉ A. CABRANES, District Judge:

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
                       I. Background                                           1096
                      II. Claims Against the University of Connecticut         1098
                     III. Claims Against the Trustee Defendants                1099
                      IV. The Federal Claims                                   1101
                       V. The Claims Under State Law                           1104
                

This action was brought by a former neurosurgery resident in the University of Connecticut-Hartford Hospital Neurosurgical Residency Program against the director of that program, the trustees of the University of Connecticut and the university itself.The action is before the court on motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment filed on behalf of the defendants.

I.Background

The plaintiff in this action is Sankar Nath Banerjee, an Indian national who resides in Illinois.See Amended Complaint (filed Feb. 8, 1985)¶ 1.Banerjee entered the four-year University of Connecticut-Hartford Hospital Neurosurgical Residency Program ("the program") in July 1978.SeeAffidavit of Melville P. Roberts (filed March 11, 1985)("Roberts Affidavit")¶¶ 8-9.The program director at all times relevant to this action was the defendantMelville P. Roberts.

It is undisputed that Banerjee signed a "residency contract" with Hartford Hospital prior to entering the program.SeeAffidavit in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment(filed April 1, 1985)("Banerjee Affidavit")¶ 9 and Exhibit A.This agreement provided, inter alia, that

Hartford Hospital hereby agrees to accept Sankar Banerjee as a G2 Resident in the Department of Neurosurgery for a period of July 1, 1978 to June 30, 1982 and to provide an educational program during this period in keeping with the standards established by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association.

Id.¹In addition, Banerjee received a letter from the university notifying him of his appointment as a neurosurgery resident and instructing him to accept the appointment in writing by a specified date.Seeid., Exhibit A.He received similar letters in subsequent years notifying him of his appointments as a second-year, third-year and fourth-year resident.Seeid., Exhibits D, E and F.

The parties agree that Banerjee asked Roberts at some point in 1978 or 1979 whether he could obtain credit for prior overseas experience.SeeRoberts Affidavit¶ 8;Banerjee Affidavit¶¶ 6-7.Banerjee contends that Roberts unconditionally assured him prior to his admission to the program that "I would be required to complete only three and a half of the full four years of the program due to my previous training in general surgery and neurosurgery."Banerjee Affidavit¶ 7.Roberts concedes that he agreed to look into the possibility of extending credit to Banerjee for his prior surgical experience; however, he contends that he abandoned any intent of awarding such credit once he had observed Banerjee's performance.SeeRoberts Affidavit¶¶ 9, 11.In any event, Roberts informed Banerjee in October 1981 that he would receive no credit for his prior overseas experience.SeeBanerjee Affidavit¶ 38.

It is undisputed that Roberts notified Banerjee in November 1981 that he was being dropped from the program effective December 31, 1981.SeeRoberts Affidavit¶ 43.Banerjee was informed either at that meeting or at some time thereafter that he would not receive credit for the third and fourth years of his residency.SeeBanerjee Affidavit¶ 42.Roberts contends that these decisions were based on deficiencies in Banerjee's performance as a neurosurgery resident that Roberts had discussed with Banerjee on a number of earlier occasions.SeeRoberts Affidavit¶¶ 19, 26-32, 42.However, Banerjee asserts that he was never made aware of any criticisms of his performance either at his November 1981 meeting with Roberts or at any time prior thereto.SeeBanerjee Affidavit¶¶ 11, 41, 57.Banerjee suggests that the decisions to dismiss him and to deny him credit for the last year and a half of his residency were based not on his performance as a neurosurgery resident but instead on his race or nationality or on his public criticism of "mismanagement" of patients by Roberts and other neurosurgeons who practiced at Hartford Hospital.SeeAmended Complaint¶ 31;Banerjee Affidavit¶¶ 17-20.

On March 29, 1982, Banerjee wrote to the American Board of Neurological Surgery complaining that he had been mistreated by Roberts.SeeBanerjee Affidavit¶ 45.In response, Roberts forwarded to the board several negative evaluations of Banerjee by other neurosurgeons associated with the program.Seeid.at ¶ 47;Roberts Affidavit¶¶ 44-45.Banerjee contends that he had never seen these evaluations until they were turned over to his counsel in the course of this litigation.SeeBanerjee Affidavit¶ 47.Moreover, he notes that the evaluations do not make reference to any specific cases in which he performed inadequately and states that he"does not believe that such cases exist."Seeid.at ¶¶ 48-49.

Banerjee commenced this lawsuit on September 28, 1984, against Roberts, the University of Connecticut, and the members of the university's Board of Trustees.The amended complaint asserts twelve causes of action against each of the twenty defendants.

II.Claims Against the University of Connecticut

A federal court is precluded by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution from considering "any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."U.S. Const., amend. XI.The Eleventh Amendment bar to suit in federal courts extends not only to the state itself but also to any entity that is deemed to be an "arm of the State."Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle,429 U.S. 274, 280, 97 S.Ct. 568, 572, 50 L.Ed.2d 471(1977).²

As the Court of Appeals observed in Hall v. Medical College of Ohio,742 F.2d 299, 301(6th Cir.1984), cert. denied,469 U.S. 1113, 105 S.Ct. 796, 83 L.Ed.2d 789(1985), "the great majority of cases addressing the question of Eleventh Amendment immunity for public colleges and universities have found such institutions to be arms of their respective state governments and thus immune from suit."See, e.g., United Carolina Bank v. Board of Regents,665 F.2d 553, 556-560(5th Cir.1982);Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents,660 F.2d 1345, 1349-1350(9th Cir.1981), aff'd sub nom.Kush v. Rutledge,460 U.S. 719, 103 S.Ct. 1483, 75 L.Ed.2d 413(1983);Perez v. Rodriguez Bou,575 F.2d 21, 25(1st Cir.1978);Brennan v. University of Kansas,451 F.2d 1287, 1290-1291(10th Cir.1971);Walstad v. University of Minnesota Hospitals,442 F.2d 634, 641-642(8th Cir.1971).

The major factors considered by these courts in determining whether a public university is an "arm of the State" for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity include the status of the university under state law, the degree of autonomy that the university exercises over its own operations, and whether any judgment against the university would have to be paid out of the state treasury.

It is evident from a consideration of these factors that the University of Connecticut is indeed an "arm" of the State of Connecticut.Significantly, the Connecticut Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars suits for damages against the university in state court.SeeFetterman v. University of Connecticut,192 Conn. 539, 552, 473 A.2d 1176(1984).

Moreover, of the nineteen members of the university's Board of Trustees, three are state officials (the governor, the commissioner of education and the commissioner of agriculture) and twelve are appointed by the governor for six-year terms.SeeC.G.S. § 10a-103.The General Assembly retains the right under the Connecticut Constitution to alter "the size, number, terms and method of appointment" of the Board of Trustees.SeeConn. Const. art. 8, § 2.Accordingly, the Board of Trustees is clearly accountable to the political branches of the state government.

Furthermore, all tuition funds received by the university must be deposited into the state treasury pursuant to C.G.S. § 4-32.SeeAffidavit of Joe Ann M. Shaffer (filed April 30, 1985)("Shaffer Affidavit")¶ 8.These funds can be expended by the university only as authorized by the Governor and the General Assembly.SeeC.G.S. §§ 10a-8, 10a-105;Shaffer Affidavit¶¶ 9-17.Accordingly, any financial liability incurred by the university as a result of this lawsuit would most likely have to be paid out of the state treasury.

In sum, the defendants having offered substantial evidence that the University of Connecticut is an "arm of the State" and the plaintiff having offered no evidence to the contrary, the court holds that the Eleventh Amendment bars the plaintiff from maintaining any suit against the university in federal court.

III.Claims Against The TrusteeDefendants

A.

The plaintiff purports in his amended complaint to have brought suit against the trustees in both their official and individual capacities.SeeAmended Complaint¶ 3;cf. Complaint (filed Sept. 28, 1984)¶ 3(describing trus...