Buksh v. Dr. William Sarchino DPM Foot & Ankle Surgeon

• Docket Number: 2:21-cv-190
• Decision Date: 17 August 2022
• Parties: SHAZAD BUKSH, KRISHNA GATHANI, GON SAMAN, Plaintiffs, v. DR. WILLIAM SARCHINO DPM FOOT AND ANKLE SURGEON, WILLIAM SARCHINO, SOUTHWESTERN VERMONT MEDICAL CENTER, SOUTHWESTERN VERMONT HEALTH CARE CORP., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Vermont

1

SHAZAD BUKSH, KRISHNA GATHANI, GON SAMAN, Plaintiffs, v. DR. WILLIAM SARCHINO DPM FOOT AND ANKLE SURGEON, WILLIAM SARCHINO, SOUTHWESTERN VERMONT MEDICAL CENTER, SOUTHWESTERN VERMONT HEALTH CARE CORP., Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-190

United States District Court, D. Vermont

August 17, 2022

OPINION AND ORDER

William K. Sessions III U.S. District Court Judge.

Plaintiffs Shazad Buksh, Krishna Gathani, and Gon Saman together claim that they were discriminated against and subjected to harassment, retaliation, and adverse employment action in violation of state and federal law by Defendants. Defendants Southwestern Vermont Medical Center (“SVMC”) and Southwestern Vermont Health Care Corp. (“SVHC”) have moved to partially dismiss for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 37. Additionally, Defendant William Sarchino has filed a partial motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 41. For the reasons set forth below, SVHC's and SVMC's motion to dismiss is denied and Dr. Sarchino's partial motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.

Factual Background

SVMC is a regional hospital that performs a variety of health care services. SVHC is a domestic nonprofit corporation that helps manage the podiatry residency program at SVMC, including issuing SVMC's antidiscrimination and harassment policies and financing the medical residents' annual salaries. Dr Sarchino was the director of the podiatry residency program at SVMC and the acting head of the Residency Training Committee during the relevant period. Additionally, Dr Sarchino operates Dr. William Sarchino DPC Foot and Ankle Surgeon, a private medical practice, and a defendant in this case.

Plaintiffs Mr. Buksh, Mr. Gathani, and Mr. Saman were all medical residents in the podiatry program at SVMC. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants subjected them to a hostile work environment engaged in retaliatory employment actions, were negligent, tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs' employment contracts, constructively discharged Plaintiffs, and breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, all in violation of federal and state law. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that “Sarchino subjected Plaintiffs to countless instances of harassment and discrimination related to Plaintiffs' ethnicity, race, and religion.” See ECF No. 36 at 4. They also allege that among other things, Dr. Sarchino referred to Plaintiffs as “you people,” “your kind,” and said that “brown people are lazy, unmotivated, disrespectful, and insubordinate.” Id. When Mr. Buksh expressed discomfort with Dr. Sarchnio's comments, Dr. Sarchino allegedly threatened to kick him out of the residency program. Plaintiffs also claim that Dr. Sarchino made false statements about them to other hospital employees which resulted in “lost educational and surgical opportunities with other attending surgeons at SVMC.” See ECF No. 36 at 5.

Plaintiffs also allege that Dr. Sarchino excluded them from surgeries and other educational opportunities, and that he ordered them to treat patients at other organizations, including a free local clinic, with which the hospital did not have any affiliation. Mr. Gathani claims that when he expressed concern about working for a non-affiliate, Dr. Sarchino kicked him out of surgeries.

Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that Dr. Sarchino instructed them to take hospital supplies from SVMC to his private practice. Plaintiffs reported these actions to Kevin Dailey, the Vice President of Human Resources at SVHC and Mitch Baroody, the Chief Compliance Officer at SVHC. According to Mr. Saman, following that complaint, Dr. Sarchino threatened him with termination, and excluded him from podiatry surgical cases and podiatry education.

Plaintiffs also allege that they were forced to take X-Rays without proper protective equipment at Dr. Sarchino's private practice. Mr. Buksh made a complaint through the Vermont Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“VOSHA”), alleging unsafe working conditions. VOSHA found Defendants in violation of the statute, ordering that a number of changes be made. See ECF No. 36 at 8. Additionally, a complaint alleging fraud, theft, abuse of power, as well as Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) violations, Occupational Safety and Health administration (“OSHA”) violations, and ethics violations, was brought to SVMC. Plaintiffs claim that after the filing of that complaint, Dr. Sarchino began telling hospital personnel that he would be firing two residents and that he changed the keys to the podiatry office. Mr. Saman and Mr. Gathani also brought up concerns about Dr. Sarchino's behavior in a monthly residency meeting. Mr. Gathani filed a complaint with James Poole, the Assistant Director of the Podiatry Residency Program, and Mr. Dailey. Mr. Gathani claims that Mr. Dailey responded by encouraging him to resign.

On March 24, 2020, the Residency Training Committee, led by Dr. Sarchino, terminated Mr. Saman's contract and ordered Mr. Buksh to repeat his second year of the residency program. Both Mr. Buksh and Mr. Saman appealed these decisions and claim that during subsequent appeal hearings, Dr. Sarchino offered “discriminatory statements” and “defam[ed]” Plaintiffs' characters. See ECF No. 36 at 11. Though Mr. Saman was eventually reinstated, he claims that he was denied surgical and educational exposure and was constructively forced to resign. Mr. Gathani also alleges that Defendants actions constructively forced him to resign. Mr. Buksh graduated from the program but claims he continued to be subjected to abuse by Dr. Sarchino and that after his graduation he “found it incredibly difficult to find a job and was forced to move across the country to escape Sarchino's influence.” See ECF No. 36 at 12.

Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants on December 29, 2021. Within the FAC, Plaintiffs bring eight causes of action: (1) a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. against Dr. Sarchino, SVMC, and SVHC for creating a hostile and abusive work environment; (2) a violation of 21 V.S.A. §507 against Dr. Sarchino, SVMC, and SVHC for retaliation; (3) a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Dr. Sarchino, SVMC, and SVHC for retaliation; (4) a violation of community standards of decency, fairness, and reasonableness against Dr. Sarchino, SVMC, and SVHC; (5) a violation of 21 V.S.A. §201 for failing to provide “safe and healthful working conditions” and retaliation following Plaintiffs' complaints in violation of 21 V.S.A. §231 by Dr. Sarchino, SVMC, and SVHC; (6) a violation of the standard of ordinary care against Dr. Sarchino; (7) a violation of the Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act 21 V.S.A. §495(a)(8) against Dr. Sarchino, SVMC, and SVHC for taking discriminatory employment actions; and (8) tortious interference with Plaintiffs' contractual relations with SVMC and SVHC against Dr. Sarchino. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as declaratory relief, and attorney's fees.

Defendants SVMC and SVHC move to dismiss Mr. Gathani's and Mr. Saman's Sixth Cause of Action and Mr. Buksh's Fifth Cause of Action for failure to state a claim. See ECF No. 37. Additionally, Dr. Sarchino moves to dismiss all claims against him-arguing that the named statutes do not apply to him as an individual. See ECF No. 38.

Discussion

I. Motion to Dismiss Standard

“To survive a motion to dismiss, 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 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plausible claim requires factual allegations that permit the Court “to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp., 12 F.3d 1170, 1174 (2d Cir. 1993). “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).

II. Defendant SVMC and SVHC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' VOSHA Claims

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to state a valid retaliation claim upon which relief can be granted under the VOSHA statute. Under VOSHA, all employees “shall be provided by their employers with safe and healthful working conditions at their workplace, and that insofar as practicable an employee shall not experience diminished health, functional capacity, or life expectancy as a result of his or her work experience[,]” and “practices and procedures prescribed by an employer for performance of work or duties by his or her employees shall not be insofar as practicable, dangerous to the life, body, or well being of the employees.” 21 V.S.A. §201(a-b). The statute includes an anti-retaliation provision which protects employees who file complaints under the statute from discharge or other forms of discrimination. 21 V.S.A §231. To successfully plead a retaliation claim under VOSHA an employee must allege “(1) [he] was engaged in protected activity, (2) the . . . defendant [] knew of that activity, (3) plaintiff suffered adverse employment action, and (4) a causal connection exists between plaintiff's protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Mellin v. Flood Brook Union School Dist., 790 A.2d 408, 417-18 (Vt. 2001). “[A]lthough the burden at the prima facie stage is minimal, P...