Karupaiyan v. CVS Health Corp.
| Decision Date | 23 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 19 Civ. 8814 (KPF) |
| Parties | PALANI KARUPAIYAN, Plaintiff, v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; AETNA INC.; ACTIVEHEALTH MANAGEMENT, INC.;LAKSHMI KALYANI BELLAMKONDA; ROBERT DENNER; APN CONSULTING, INC.; VEDANT PATHAK; NEELA PATHAK; and PURVI JHALA, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Palani Karupaiyan (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this suit against APN Consulting Inc. (“APN”), APN executives Vedant Pathak, Neela Pathak, and Purvi Jhala (collectively, the “APN Defendants”); CVS Health Corporation (“CVS”), Aetna, Active Health Management (“AHM”), and Aetna employees Kalyani Lakshmi Bellamkonda and Robert Denner (collectively, the “CVS Defendants, ” and together with the APN Defendants “Defendants”), [1]alleging a litany of civil rights violations, tortious conduct, and criminal activity, stemming from the two-month period in the summer of 2019 when Plaintiff provided services to CVS and its affiliates. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint posits wide-ranging theories of harm in its 33 counts, including claims for discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment constructive discharge, failure to hire, failure to promote, failure to accommodate disabilities, breach of contract, copyright infringement, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and attempted murder. Plaintiff's efforts to be thorough, however, are at times overinclusive, such as his invocation of upwards of 30 statutory provisions, without regard to whether each provision exists, is applicable to this case, or contains a private cause of action. Plaintiff seeks billions of dollars of compensatory and punitive damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
The CVS Defendants and the APN Defendants have separately moved to dismiss the entirety of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth in the remainder of this Opinion, Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND[2]
Plaintiff is a 49-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, who was born in Tamil Nadu, a state in southern India. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 25, 28). He describes himself as a follower of the Hindu religion. (Id. at ¶ 25). Plaintiff has diabetes, as well as Situs Inversus Totalis (“SIT”), a genetic disability to which he ascribes pulmonary and vascular issues. (Id. at ¶¶ 27, 88). Plaintiff is also a seasoned software engineer, with more than 25 years of engineering, coding, and information technology experience. (Id. at ¶¶ 28-29).
AHM is a health data management company that offers “clinical and consumer analytics, care management, [and] health, lifestyle and wellness programs[.]” (Am. Compl. ¶ 5). AHM is a fully owned subsidiary of Aetna, which in turn is owned by CVS. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5).
On or about May 3, 2019, Plaintiff was contacted by a recruiter from APN, an information technology staffing firm, regarding a “contract to hire [a] Software Engineer with AHM/Aetna.” (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11-13, 30). The application process involved multiple interviews and a background check. (Id. at ¶¶ 32-33, 35-36). Thereafter, on or about May 28, 2019, Plaintiff, via the business entity Karupaiyan Consulting, Inc., entered into a Contractor Agreement with APN that delimited the relationship between Plaintiff and APN and the services that Plaintiff was to provide to APN's client, AHM. (See id. at ¶ 40; see also Pathak Decl., Ex. A (the “Contractor Agreement”)). In relevant part, the Contractor Agreement provided that Plaintiff was to submit monthly invoices and weekly client-approved timesheets to APN, and that APN would, in turn, invoice AHM for Plaintiff's hours and pay Plaintiff for the services rendered. (See Am. Compl. ¶ 40(c), (e); Contractor Agreement ¶¶ 3, 5-6). The Fee Schedule & Assignment Outline, which was incorporated by reference into the Contractor Agreement, set Plaintiff's hourly rate at $68 per hour and provided that “[o]nce [the] Client determines the Project is completed, the Contractor Service Agreement will terminate unless otherwise agreed.” (Pathak Decl., Ex. B (the “Fee Schedule”)). The Contractor Agreement further provided that “either party may terminate this agreement by giving the other 2 weeks' prior written notice.” (Contractor Agreement ¶ 13; Am. Compl. ¶ 40(h)).
On or about June 17, 2019, Plaintiff began working as an “Independent full-stack software engineer to single integrated employer CVS/AETNA/AHM/APN.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 42).[3] In particular, Plaintiff worked on implementing technical improvements to an AHM application called “MyActiveHealth, ” or “MAH, ” which application assisted AHM clients and customers in maintaining their health management plans. (Id. at ¶¶ 41-43, 112). Plaintiff has acknowledged that “APN hired [him] to only work with this CVS project.” (Id. at ¶ 47).
Plaintiff alleges that, throughout the course of his engagement with Aetna-AHM, he was subjected to unfair, harmful, and discriminatory treatment at the hands of various colleagues. One way this mistreatment manifested was via issues with Plaintiff's work equipment and workspace. According to Plaintiff, Aetna-AHM delayed in providing him a work laptop for the first three weeks of his employment (Am. Compl. ¶ 75), and when the laptop finally arrived, it turned out to be inefficient, “poor performing, ” and “costly” (id. at ¶¶ 54-57). In addition, Plaintiff's desk was wobbly, which forced him to take the extra precaution of buying a laptop case, at his own expense, to guard against the risk that his computer would teeter off his desk. (Id. at ¶¶ 80-81). Separately, renovations taking place on the floor above his workspace caused large amounts of dust to fall from the ceiling onto Plaintiff's desk, which “made it difficult [for him] to breathe, and caused chest pain and frequent coughing.” (Id. at ¶ 88). Plaintiff's request to move was denied by Kalyani, a Senior Director at Aetna and his direct supervisor, despite her apparent awareness of Plaintiff's lung condition. (Id. at ¶¶ 62-63, 88).
Plaintiff made several additional requests for accommodations, all of which were denied by Kalyani. These included: (i) his request to eat at his desk (Am. Compl. ¶ 87); (ii) his request to be given access to an office locker to store his laptop because of pain attributed to carrying the laptop to and from work (id. at ¶ 89); (iii) his multiple requests to use a larger computer monitor because his diabetes caused his eyes to strain while using the small laptop screen (id. at ¶¶ 90-92); and (iv) his requests to work from home when he had doctor's appointments (id. at ¶¶ 93-95). Plaintiff alleges that in each instance, other employees were permitted the very accommodations he sought. (Id. at ¶¶ 87, 89, 90-91, 93, 95).
Plaintiff's supervisors also made repugnant comments concerning his race and national origin. In or about the third week of June 2019, Kalyani and a test engineer from Plaintiff's team told Plaintiff that “he speaks like a ‘black apple.'” (Am. Compl. ¶ 97). On another unspecified occasion, Neela, a Vice President at APN Consulting who also supervised Plaintiff, told him that because he was a “black old Madrasi” she would endeavor to remove him from the project on which they were working. (Id. at ¶¶ 15, 98). And on or around September 6, 2019, Plaintiff called Vedant, APN's founder and CEO, to look into backpay he believed he was owed, to which request Vedant responded that he would “beat [Plaintiff] because [he is] black, sick, madrasi tamil if [he] request[s] money again.” (Id. at ¶¶ 14, 117).
In early August 2019, Kalyani told Plaintiff that someone else would be replacing him in his position. (Am. Compl. ¶ 100). Plaintiff's replacement was a “young white Muslim man in [his] 20s.” (Id. at ¶ 73). In or about the second week of August 2019, Kalyani told the other members of Plaintiff's team that they should not speak to Plaintiff about work-related matters. (Id. at ¶ 105). Plaintiff was subsequently fired from his position on August 26, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 106).
Plaintiff alleges that around the time of his termination, Kalyani told Denner, an Aetna employee, to “kick the ‘black old tamil guy out of here immediately.'” (Am. Compl. ¶ 107). Denner proceeded to lead Plaintiff to a meeting room, where Jhala, an APN employee, was waiting. (Id.). Upon entering the room, Denner and Jhala told Plaintiff that his job was being outsourced to India. (Id. at ¶ 108). Denner asked Plaintiff to hand over his laptop, after which time “[s]omeone grabbed [Plaintiff] and kicked [him] repeatedly.” (Id.). Denner then told Plaintiff, “you black guy, go back to India, ” before escorting him off the premises. (Id.). At some point, Plaintiff overheard Denner and Jhala say that they should “erase the evidences from the Macbook.” (Id. at ¶ 223).
Plaintiff was never paid for the work he performed during his time at Aetna-AHM. (Am. Compl. ¶ 103). As a result, Plaintiff was unable to purchase “kidney protection medicine” and consequently suffered damage to his kidneys and bladder. (Id. at ¶¶ 110, 114-115). He further alleges that a number of personal items, including his monitor cables, USB hub, iPhone, and laptop case, remain in Aetna's possession. (Id. at ¶ 111).
Plaintiff initiated the instant lawsuit on September 23, 2019, with the filing of a 38-count complaint against the CVS and APN Defendants. (Dkt. #2).[4] On March 9, 2020, the APN Defendants filed a letter motion seeking leave to file a motion to dismiss the initial complaint. (Dkt. #26). On March 16, 2020, the CVS Defendants filed a letter motion seeking the same. (Dkt #29). On May 26, 2020, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial