Joshi v. Trs. of Columbia Univ. in N.Y.
| Decision Date | 25 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | 17-cv-4112 (JGK) |
| Citation | 515 F.Supp.3d 200 |
| Parties | Shailendra JOSHI, Plaintiff, v. The TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN the CITY OF NEW YORK, Columbia University in the City of New York, and Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Bruce Alden Langer, Janet Cohn Neschis, Jonathan Robert Jeremias, Steven J. Hyman, McLaughlin and Stern, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Andrew William Schilling, Brian Jeffrey Wegrzyn, Dana Walsh Kumar, Buckley LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants.
Dr. Shailendra Joshi, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons ("CUCPS"), an affiliate of Columbia University in the City of New York (the "University"), brings this action against CUCPS, the University, and the Trustees of the University (together with CUCPS and the University, the "defendants"). After this Court's Opinion and Order on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ECF No. 38, there are four remaining causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) promissory estoppel, and (4) violation of Section 715-b of the New York Non-Profit Revitalization Act of 2013, N.Y. Not-for-Profit Corp. Law § 715-b. Dr. Joshi alleges that the defendants retaliated against him or otherwise failed to protect him from retaliation because he made an allegation of research misconduct against a distinguished colleague. The plaintiff initiated this case by filing a complaint on June 1, 2017, which he amended on August 31, 2017. On May 29, 2018, this Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiff then moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from closing his lab. This Court denied the motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on July 23, 2020 and August 31, 2020 respectively. The defendants now move for summary judgment dismissing all the remaining causes of action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the following reasons, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted .
Dr. Joshi joined the University in 1997 as an Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology in the Department of Anesthesia (the "Department") in the Neuroanesthesiology Division. See Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 1. Upon accepting his initial offer of employment, Dr. Joshi signed an employment agreement, but he did not enter into any other agreements. Id. ¶¶ 2-3; Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. B, Joshi Tr. 13. Dr. Joshi's appointment is evaluated for renewal every two years. See Joshi Decl. ¶ 2.
Dr. Joshi's initial offer of employment provided that Dr. Joshi would have "teaching, research and administrative duties" as well as "professional clinical services incident to [his] employment." Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. A. Part of his remuneration as an Assistant Professor was for "clinical supplement[s]" in addition to his "base salary." Id. Throughout his time as a professor at the University, Dr. Joshi has made clear that he believes his clinical assignments interfere with his research. One such assignment was administration of anesthesia to patients receiving electroconvulsive therapy ("ECT"). The amount of clinical assignments for a professor in the Department traditionally is tied to the amount of external funding that a professor has for research. See Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. N, Division Chief Tr. 49.
Faculty members who received funding through a research grant were guaranteed a specified amount of non-clinical time that they could devote to research. Id. This is also known as protected research time. The Department covers the cost of non-clinical time that is not supported by external funding. See Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 9. From March 2001 to February 2006, Dr. Joshi had a K08 grant from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences that guaranteed him 75% protected research time. Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. C; Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 10. He had two R01 grants from the National Cancer Institute from September 2008 to July 2014 and April 2011 to March 2017, each of which guaranteed him 30% protected research time. Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. C; Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 11. From November 2013 to July 2018, Dr. Joshi submitted seven grant proposals to the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health, but he did not receive funding from any of those proposals, although one remains pending. Id. Therefore, Dr. Joshi's external funding guaranteed him 75% protected research time from March 2001 to February 2006, 60% protected research time from April 2011 through July 2014, and 30% protected research time from August 2014 through March 2017. See Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 10, 13. Based on external funding, Dr. Joshi was not guaranteed any non-clinical time after March 2017 because he did not secure external funding. Id. ¶ 13. Dr. Joshi never was given less non-clinical time than the amount guaranteed by his external funding. See Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. B, Joshi Tr. 178; Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. O at Exs. A & B. The plaintiff contends that, despite the amounts of protected research time he was owed as a function of his external funding, there was a Department practice of providing for more non-clinical time in addition to the amount strictly guaranteed by external funding. See Joshi Decl. ¶ 30. The defendants contend that Dr. Joshi was not entitled to any non-clinical time beyond the protected research time he was guaranteed from external grants.
Soon after joining the Department, Dr. Joshi expressed his disagreement with the former Division Chief and became engulfed in interpersonal conflicts with the Division Chief in various contexts.1 For example, in 2001, Dr. Joshi emailed the Division Chief claiming that the Division Chief unfairly allocated non-clinical time, and in July 2005, Dr. Joshi sent 2 emails accusing the Division Chief of lying and poor leadership. See Wegrzyn Decl. Exs. E, F, G; Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 16-17. In 2009, Dr. Joshi sent several emails to the Division Chief and then-Chair of the Department, Dr. Margaret Wood, alleging that the Division Chief had made "repeated threats of firing" Dr. Joshi as a form of "intimidation for protesting the misallocation of [his] K08 time." Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. H. The Division Chief responded that the Division Chief "never threatened to fire [Dr. Joshi]" to which Dr. Joshi replied "YOU ARE WRONG YOU SAID IT IN 2004, in 2006 and in CORROL [sic] HIRSCHMAN'S OFFICE WHERE YOU SAID THAT ‘I HAD DUG MY GRAVE’, ‘I SHOULD SEEK ANOTHER JOB’ AND ‘THAT MY ACADEMIC CARRER [sic] IS OVER.’ " Id. To resolve any dispute about non-clinical time, in 2009, the Division Chief told Dr. Joshi that the Division Chief "would like to sit down with [Dr. Joshi]" in order to "discuss [Dr. Joshi's] non-clinical time." Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. I. Dr. Joshi declined the offer to discuss the non-clinical time and told the Division Chief he was "fed up with lies and half truthe [sic] deception and spin." Id.; Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. B, Joshi Tr. 298. In January 2011, Dr. Joshi emailed a colleague that the Department's actions "fit[ ] into the pattern of ongoing discrimination against my research an [sic] continued denial of opportunities, whether they are lab space, research time, departmental funds, promotion, tenure, access to medical student, fellows and residents, teaching and administrative opportunities" that has been "very destructive to my career." Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. J. This rancorous interpersonal conflict between Dr. Joshi and the Division Chief predated Dr. Joshi's allegation of research misconduct against the Division Chief, which happened years later.
When Dr. Joshi's K08 grant was in effect, Dr. Joshi had 75% protected research time and did not perform ECTs. See Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 26. In February 2006, when the K08 grant lapsed, Dr. Joshi no longer had protected research time and resumed ECTs. Id. ¶ 27. When possible, the Department accommodated Dr. Joshi's request not to be assigned to ECTs. Id. ¶ 29. However, performing ECTs was a responsibility of the physicians in the Neuroanesthesia Division. See Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. K, Wood Tr. at 105. In or around the time Dr. Joshi received his two R01 grants, he had protected research time and the Department stopped assigning him ECTs. See Defs.’ 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 30-31; Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. B, Joshi Tr. 179, 184. At one point in 2012, Dr. Joshi came to an agreement with the Department to limit his assignments to ECTs, but Dr. Wood emailed that "under no circumstances" would she "guarantee" more non-clinical time than was guaranteed by Dr. Joshi's external funding. Jeremias Decl. Ex. 9.
Dr. Wood and others in the Department repeatedly approached Dr. Joshi to encourage him to prepare his promotion materials. For example, in June 2011, Dr. Wood emailed Dr. Joshi to set up a meeting to "move ahead with [his] promotion." Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. R. Dr. Joshi declined to meet with Dr. Wood regarding his promotion because Dr. Joshi allegedly believed the promotion process would be "an unfair and hostile process." Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. S. By August 2011, Dr. Joshi withdrew himself from consideration for promotion. See Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. B, Joshi Tr. 246; Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. S. In June 2014, members of the Department again encouraged Dr. Joshi to apply for a promotion, and the Vice Chair of Research in the Department, Dr. Emala, agreed to "attend every meeting" relating to Dr. Joshi's promotion. Wegrzyn Decl. Ex. T. However, Dr. Joshi told Dr. Emala to "just forget it" and that Dr. Joshi would put the promotion "in the back burner" because Dr. Joshi believed it would be "exceedingly painful to go to someone like Wood who is morally bankrupt and dishonest, basically I see her as pure evil." Id.
In March 2015, Dr. Joshi emailed...
To continue reading
Request your trial