Bhattacharya v. Murray

• Decision Date: 31 March 2021
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:19-cv-00054
• Citation: Bhattacharya v. Murray, 515 F.Supp.3d 436 (W.D. Va. 2021)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
• Parties: Kieran Ravi BHATTACHARYA, Plaintiff, v. James B. MURRAY, Jr., et al., Defendants.

515 F.Supp.3d 436

Kieran Ravi BHATTACHARYA, Plaintiff,

v.James B. MURRAY, Jr., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-00054

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division.

Signed March 31, 2021

Michael J. Lockerby, Jack Gabriel Haake, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Madeline Markelz Gibson, Calvin Cameron Brown, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, VA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NORMAN K. MOON, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PlaintiffKieran Ravi Bhattacharya filed an amended four-count complaint against various individuals at the University of Virginia in relation to his suspension and dismissal from the University of Virginia School of Medicine.

Bhattacharya seeks injunctive relief and damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation in violation of his First Amendment right of free speech (Count I) and for deprivation of his Fourteenth Amendment right of due process (Count II) from various individuals at the University of Virginia and its medical school.¹Bhattacharya also seeks damages for conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)(Count III) and conspiracy to injure him in his trade, business, and profession under Virginia Code § 18.2-499(Count IV) from the Individual Defendants in their official and individual capacities.

Defendants² filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).Dkt. 112.The Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV, but will deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count I.

I.ALLEGED FACTUAL BACKGROUND

For the purposes of ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true the following allegations set forth in the amended complaint and attached exhibits.

A.The October 25 Microaggression Panel Discussion

On October 25, 2018, Bhattacharya—then a second-year medical student at the University of Virginia School of Medicine ("UVA Medical School")—attended a panel discussion on "microaggressions."Dkt. 33 ¶ 3.During the event, UVA Professor Beverly Colwell Adams, Ph.D., gave a roughly seventeen-minute presentation about her research on microaggressions, and Bhattacharya asked Adams some questions.Id.The exchange began:

Bhattacharya: Hello.Thank you for your presentation.I had a few questions just to clarify your definition of microaggressions.Is it a requirement, to be a victim of microaggression, that you are a member of a marginalized group?

Adams: Very good question.And no.And no—

Bhattacharya: But in the definition, it just said you have to be a member of a marginalized group—in the definition you just provided in the last slide.So that's contradictory.

Adams: What I had there is kind of the generalized definition.In fact, I extend it beyond that.As you see, I extend it to any marginalized group, and sometimes it's not a marginalized group.There are examples that you would think maybe not fit, such as body size, height, [or] weight.And if that is how you would like to see me expand it, yes, indeed, that's how I do.

Bhattacharya: Yeah, follow-up question.Exactly how do you define marginalized and who is a marginalized group?Where does that go?I mean, it seems extremely nonspecific.

Adams: And—that's intentional.That's intentional to make it more nonspecific ....

Dkt. 33-2(audio recording of panel discussion).

After the initial exchange, Bhattacharya challenged Adams's definition of microaggression.He argued against the notion that "the person who is receiving the microaggressions somehow knows the intention of the person who made it," and he expressed concern that "a microaggression is entirely dependent on how the person who's receiving it is reacting."Id.He continued his critique of Adams's work, saying, "The evidence that you provided—and you said you've studied this for years—which is just one anecdotal case—I mean do you have, did you study anything else about microaggressions that you know in the last few years?"Id.After Adams responded to Bhattacharya's third question, he asked an additional series of questions: "So, again, what is the basis for which you're going to tell someone that they've committed a microaggression?... Where are you getting this basis from?How are you studying this, and collecting evidence on this, and making presentations on it?"Id.;see alsoDkt. 33 ¶ 56.

At that point, Assistant Professor Sara Rasmussen, a fellow panelist who helped organize the event, responded, "OK, I'll take that.And I think that we should make sure to open up the floor to lots of people for questions."Dkts. 33-2; 33 ¶ 4.Bhattacharya agreed, "Of course, yeah."Dkt. 33-2.Rasmussen then told a story about how her former peers and colleagues had subjected her to "harmless jokes" and microaggressions related to stereotypes about those who come from rural states, as she did.Id.She concluded:

You have to learn to uncouple the intent of what you're saying and the impact it has on the audience.And you have to have a responsibility for the impact of your actions.And if you make a statement that someone considers insensitive, the first thing you can say is, "Oh my gosh, that was not my intent."But don't get frustrated with that person for bringing it to your attention.

Id.;see alsoDkt. 33 ¶ 58.Bhattacharya responded to Rasmussen, saying:

Bhattacharya: I have to respond to that because I never talked about getting frustrated at a person for making a statement.I never condoned any statements that you are making like that.But what I am saying is that what you're providing is anecdotal evidence.That's what you provided.That's what she provided—

Rasmussen: No, I think she's provided a lot of citations in the literature.And I'm sorry—I was just reading your body language.

Dkt. 33-2;see alsoDkt. 33 ¶¶ 59–60.Bhattacharya then began to speak over Rasmussen, who called on someone else to ask a question.Dkts. 33-2; 33 ¶ 60.Bhattacharya's dialogue with Adams and Rasmussen lasted approximately five minutes and fifteen seconds.Dkt. 33-2.

B. Kern's October 25 Professionalism Concern Card

Assistant Professor of Urology Nora Kern, who helped organize the panel and attended it, filed a Professionalism Concern Card ("Card") against Bhattacharya on the same day as the event.Dkt. 33-13;see alsoDkt. 33 ¶ 66.³Kern's Card identified "Respect for Others" and "Respect for Differences" as areas of concern.Dkt. 33-13;see alsoDkt. 33 ¶ 67.The comments section reads:

For [an] AMWA session, we held a panel on micro aggression.Myself and 2 other faculty members were invited guests.This student asked a series of questions that were quite antagonistic toward the panel.He pressed on and stated one faculty member was being contradictory.His level of frustration/anger seemed to escalate until another faculty member defused the situation by calling on another student for questions.I am shocked that a med student would show so little respect toward faculty members.It worries me how he will do on wards.

Dkt. 33-13;see alsoDkt. 33 ¶ 67.The Card noted that Kern had not discussed her concerns with Bhattacharya, but it also noted that she did not feel uncomfortable discussing her concerns with him.Dkt. 33-13;Dkt. 33 ¶ 69.Kern told Rasmussen and Peterson about the Card she filed, but Kern did not directly notify Bhattacharya.Dkt. 33 ¶ 69.Bhattacharya did not receive a copy of the Card until December 20, 2018, after his suspension.Id.

C. Peterson's October 25 Email and October 31 Meeting

Hours after the panel, Christine Peterson, Assistant Dean for Medical Education, sent Bhattacharya an email with the subject "The panel today."Dkt. 33-12.The email read:

Kieran,

I was at the noontime "Microaggressions"panel today and observed your discomfort with the speaker's perspective on the topic.

Would you like to come share your thoughts with me?I think I can provide some perspective that will reassure you about what you are and are not responsible for in interactions that could be uncomfortable even when that's not intended.If you'd prefer to talk with your own college dean, that's fine too.I simply want to help you understand and be able to cope with unintended consequences of conversations.

Dr. Peterson

Id.;see alsoDkt. 33 ¶ 63.Kieran responded a couple of hours later:

Dr. Peterson,

Your observed discomfort of me from wherever you sat was not at all how I felt.I was quite happy that the panel gave me so much time to engage with them about the semantics regarding the comparison of microaggressions and barbs.I have no problems with anyone on the panel; I simply wanted to give them some basic challenges regarding the topic.And I understand that there is a wide range of acceptable interpretations on this.I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss this further.

Sincerely,

Kieran Bhattacharya

Dkt. 33-12;see alsoDkt. 33 ¶ 65.That evening, Peterson replied: "I understand.I don't know you at all so I may have misinterpreted your challenges to the speaker."Dkt. 33-12;see alsoDkt. 33 ¶ 65.The two agreed to meet on October 31.Dkt. 33-12;see alsoDkt. 33 ¶ 65.

During Bhattacharya and Peterson's one-hour meeting, Peterson "barely mentioned" Bhattacharya's questions and comments at the panel discussion.Dkt. 33 ¶ 73.Instead, Peterson attempted to determine Bhattacharya's "views on various social and political issues—including sexual assault, affirmative action, and the election of President Trump."Id.

D.The November 1 Meeting with Densmore

On October 26, the day after the panel discussion, Densmore—Associate Dean for Admissions and Student Affairs, and Bhattacharya's assigned academic dean—emailed Bhattacharya.Id.¶ 71.Densmore's email read:

Hi Kieran,

I just wanted to check in and see how you were doing.I hope the semester is going well.I'd like to meet next week if you have some time.

JJD

Id.;see alsoDkt. 33-14.Bhattacharya agreed to meet with Densmore on November 1.Dkt....