Saxena v. Univ. of Mass. Med. Sch.

Decision Date02 March 2020
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION No. 19-40007-TSH
Citation442 F.Supp.3d 395
Parties Dr. Vishal SAXENA, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

Suzanne L. Herold, Herold Law Group, P.C., Charlestown, MA, for Plaintiff.

Jonathan R. Sigel, Mirick O'Connell Demallie & Lougee, Worcester, MA, Brian M. Casaceli, Mirick, O'Connell, DeMallie & Lougee, LLP, Westborough, MA, for Defendant.

Memorandum of Decision and Order

HILLMAN, D.J.

Background

Dr. Vishal Saxena ("Plaintiff" or "Saxena") filed suit against University of Massachusetts Medical School ("Defendant" or "UMMS") alleging claims for: age discrimination under the Massachusetts Antidiscrimination Act, Mass. Gen.L. ch. 151B § 1 et seq. ("Chapter 151B") (Count One); race/national origin discrimination in violation of Chapter 151B (Count Two); retaliation for reporting discrimination in violation of Chapter 151B (Count Three); violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA") (Count Four); retaliation in violation of the ADA (Count Five); violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("Rehabilitation Act")(Count Six); retaliation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act based on not granting Plaintiff an accommodation (Count Seven); and retaliation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act based on Defendant's invasion of Plaintiff's privacy (Count Eight).

Plaintiffs' claims arise from a series of administrative decisions by UMMS regarding a potential accommodation for his formaldehyde sensitivity, and alleged harassment he suffered due to his age and/or national origin. This Memorandum of Decision and Order addresses Defendant's Motion To Dismiss (Docket No. 9) which seeks dismissal of Counts One, Two and Three. For the reasons set forth below, that motion is granted.

Standard of Review

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court "must assume the truth of all well-plead[ed] facts and give plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom." Ruiz v. Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. , 496 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing Rogan v. Menino , 175 F.3d 75, 77 (1st Cir. 1999) ). To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must state a claim that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). That is, "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ... on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (internal citations omitted). The standard "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id.

"The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). Dismissal is appropriate if plaintiff's well-pleaded facts do not "possess enough heft to show that plaintiff is entitled to relief." Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharm., LLC , 521 F.3d 76, 84 (1st Cir. 2008) (internal quotations and original alterations omitted). "The relevant inquiry focuses on the reasonableness of the inference of liability that the plaintiff is asking the court to draw from the facts alleged in the complaint." Ocasio-Hernàndez v. Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2011).

Facts 1
Plaintiff Enrolls at UMMS

Plaintiff enrolled at UMMS, a public medical school, in or about August 2014. Plaintiff was born in India and at the time of his enrollment was over 40 years old. He had a well-documented sensitivity to formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a carcinogen classified as a toxic, corrosive, and sensitizing chemical. Exposure to formaldehyde can cause the Plaintiff trouble with breathing, coughing, eye irritation, disorientation, and more. Formaldehyde is utilized to preserve cadavers that UMMS use in its anatomy lab.

Plaintiff's Interactions with Faculty Members Regarding Incidents of Harassment and His Requests for Accommodations for his Formaldehyde Sensitivity

In early September 2014, Plaintiff met with his faculty advisor, Dr. Phil Fournier ("Dr. Fournier") and reported that other students were harassing him because of his age. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Fournier "responded by threatening Dr. Saxena about his vaccination status." Also, in late September 2014, Plaintiff met with Susan Gagliardi, UMMS Vice Chair of Medical Education, who acknowledged his concern about his severe reaction to formaldehyde and asked him to see a Student Health primary care physician, Dr. Joseph DiFranza. He was told that he would be evaluated, and Environmental Health and Safety would work directly with Student Health to implement whatever action is needed. Dr. DiFranza concluded that Plaintiff should not go into the anatomy lab due to the risk of formaldehyde exposure. Plaintiff was informed by Student Health Services that he was to be fitted with a respirator despite (Dr. DiFranza's conclusion that he not enter the lab even with a respirator). Plaintiff was also asked to provide letters from a physician regarding his sensitivity to formaldehyde.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff again met with Dr. Fournier who continued to threaten him about vaccines. Dr. Fournier also indicated that his course of study could be delayed to five or more years, told him "I'm sure you are in good health" and that "this is a small UMMS" so Plaintiff "should not make trouble because things get around." Also, in early October, Plaintiff met with the Chair of the Academic Accommodations Committee, Deborah Harmon-Hines, ("Harmon-Hines") to discuss potential formaldehyde accommodations. Plaintiff alleges Harmon-Hines was "very hostile" and "mentioned Plaintiff's Indian origin for no attributable reason." Harmon-Hines informed Plaintiff, in response to his stating that the process was taking too long, that his course of study may be delayed to five or more years. Harmon-Hines offered Plaintiff the accommodation of using a frozen cadaver. Plaintiff contacted Terence Flotte ("Flotte"), Dean of UMMS, and asked for a meeting to discuss his concerns as to how he was treated by Harmon-Hines. Flotte refused to meet with him. Flotte instead directed Plaintiff to meet with Deborah DeMarco ("DeMarco"), Co-Chair of the ADA Accommodations Committee. When he met with DeMarco, she "refused" to accept his written note from a primary care physician and instead asked for written documentation from specialists.

Around that same time, Plaintiff spoke with his Anatomy Professor, Dr. Anne Gilroy, ("Dr. Gilroy") who informed him that "UMMS only accepts evaluations from American physicians...." Plaintiff further alleges that Dr. Gilroy told him to "do as he was told," that he was "choosing to make trouble for the school," and that he should "leave the school" and "go get a job." Plaintiff felt these comments were aimed at both his age and national origin. In November 2014, Plaintiff met with the Associate Dean of Student Affairs, Dr. Michael Kneeland ("Dr. Kneeland"). Plaintiff alleges Dr. Kneeland "asked where [he] is from." Plaintiff believes he was referring to his national origin.

Throughout his first semester, Plaintiff and UMMS worked together to find a reasonable accommodation to permit him to safely enter the anatomy lab. UMMS initially suggested a respirator, but eventually offered Plaintiff a full hazmat suit for protective wear. UMMS also offered Plaintiff to perform part of the lab work outside the anatomy lab (i.e. , Plaintiff could dissect a cow's heart in a different lab). Plaintiff believed, however, that he would still have to complete the remainder of the lab work in an area where he would be exposed to formaldehyde. Plaintiff feared the hazmat suit would not adequately protect him. For that and a litany of other reasons, he also rejected that accommodation. UMMS also suggested a frozen cadaver alternative, or the possibility of Plaintiff taking anatomy at a different location or transferring out entirely. When these options were presented, Plaintiff felt they were unreasonable. However, Plaintiff eventually concluded that the most reasonable accommodation would be to permit him to use a frozen cadaver. When UMMS and Plaintiff had not agreed to a reasonable accommodation by February 2015, Plaintiff was forced to drop anatomy.

In the summer of 2015, Plaintiff "raised concerns" with the new Associate Dean of Student Affairs, Dr. Sonia Chimienti ("Dr. Chimienti"), about "harassment by students at the school where his age and national origin/race seemed to be underlying issues." He mentioned that he had previously raised these concerns with Dr. Fournier in September 2014. Plaintiff asserts that he sent an email to Dr. Chimienti at the end of August 2015 "mentioning that he still felt threatened...." Dr. Chimienti suggested that Plaintiff submit his complaints against Dr. Fournier in writing.

In July 2015, UMMS held a committee meeting dealing with Plaintiff's medical need for an accommodation and possibility of providing him with a frozen cadaver. In August 2015, the results of the committee meeting were communicated to Plaintiff and he received written notification in September: Plaintiff's accommodation would be worked out with the anatomy instructors with input, as needed, from the accommodations office.

Sometime in August 2015, Plaintiff met with Dr. David Hatem and Dr. Michael Ennis. Plaintiff explained to them that "several students had been harassing him based on his age and national origin" and that he had previously mentioned this to Dr. Fournier. After this meeting Dr. Fournier admitted that he had threatened Plaintiff and Plaintiff was ultimately assigned a new advisor, Dr. Durbin. Plaintiff found Dr. Durbin to be "harsh and aggressive." Plaintiff...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Naimark v. Bae Sys. Info. & Elec. Sys. Integration
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • December 23, 2021
    ...2020) (citation omitted). Here, Naimark has failed to show that his requested accommodation, a 10:00 a.m. arrival, caused his termination. See id. As a preliminary matter, Naimark's issues and the imposition of the PIP both predate Naimark's request for an accommodation (10:00 a.m. arrival)......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT