Thakral v. Haw. Residency Programs, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 19-cv-00563-DKW-RT |
| Parties | GAURAV THAKRAL, M.D., Plaintiff, v. HAWAII RESIDENCY PROGRAMS, INC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii |
After Plaintiff Gaurav Thakral, M.D., was dismissed from the medical residency program at the University of Hawaii, he brought this civil action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq., asserting that he was unlawfully dismissed because of alleged mental disabilities. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 12, that does not challenge the merits of Thakral's claims. Instead, Defendants argue that (1) Thakral's claims against Defendant Hawaii Residency Programs, Inc., are untimely; and (2) this Court should stay this case in favor of Thakral's related lawsuit in state court pursuant to the Brillhart-Wilton line of cases, or, alternatively, pursuant to Colorado River and its progeny.
The Court concludes that Thakral's claims were not filed within ninety days of receiving his right-to-sue notice. A stay, however, is not appropriate. Defendants' motion is, therefore, GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
In July 2014, Thakral was experiencing "mental performance and test taking anxiety issues" and sought treatment from Richard R. Szuster, M.D. ("Dr. Szuster"), a psychiatrist. Dr. Szuster diagnosed Thakral with certain mental conditions, including major depressive disorder, unspecified anxiety disorder, and attention deficit disorder. Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 52.
In 2015, Thakral applied for and was accepted as a medical resident in the Pathology Residency Training Program (the "Program") at John A. Burns School of Medicine at the University of Hawaii (the "University"). Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 3, 29. On April 21, 2016, at the conclusion of his first year in the Program, Thakral executed a one-year Agreement for Appointment to Residency Training with Defendant Hawaii Residency Programs, Inc. (HRPI), effective from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 (the "Contract"), spanning Thakral's second year in the Program. Id. at ¶ 34; Dkt. No. 19-3. By virtue of the Contract provisions, Thakral alleges HRPI is an agent of the University for purposes of the Program because HRPI administered the Program, and the University sponsored and controlled the Program. Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶35-49.
During Thakral's first year in the Program, he experienced performancedifficulties, which Thakral attributes to his diagnosed mental conditions. Id. at ¶ 53. On July 8, 2016, a few days after beginning his second year in the Program, the Program Director (Dr. Amy Powers) and the Associate Program Director (Dr. David Shimizu) informed Thakral via email that he was being placed in Targeted Mentorship to address academic performance issues. Id. at ¶ 54. When Thakral's academic performance issues continued, Dr. Powers sent a letter to Thakral on October 24, 2016, imposing a remediation period (November 1, 2016 to January 31, 2017) and notifying Thakral that she accepted the Clinical Competency Committee's (CCC) recommendation to issue an Academic Notice. Id. at ¶ 56.
As a result, in late November 2016, Thakral sought additional treatment from Karen A. Tyson, Psy.D. for "problems with memory and test taking anxiety." Id. at ¶ 57. Dr. Tyson conducted neuropsychological testing and issued a report on January 11, 2017, which was later amended on May 31, 2017 (Tyson Report). Id. at ¶ 58. In her report, Dr. Tyson diagnosed Thakral with "specific learning disorder with impairment in reading, dyslexia" and causally linked that learning disorder to Thakral's performance issues in the Program. Id.
Sometime in early 2017, Thakral spoke several times with Dr. Powers about his academic performance and disclosed that he was receiving treatment from Dr. Tyson. Id. at ¶ 62. Thakral alleges that Dr. Powers declined to accept a copy of the Tyson Report and told Thakral he was "costing the Program too much money." Id.at ¶ 63.
On February 2, 2017, Dr. Powers sent Thakral a letter, extending the required remediation period until February 28, 2017 and informing Thakral that she had accepted the CCC's recommendation to issue an Academic Warning for Thakral's continuing performance issues. Id. at ¶ 59. On March 17, 2017, Dr. Powers issued Thakral a Notice of Prospective Dismissal from the Program (First Notice). Under the First Notice, Thakral was placed on leave without pay pending the outcome of the grievance process and banned from the Queen's Medical Center University Tower unless summoned by Dr. Powers. Id. at ¶¶ 60-61.
In a letter, Thakral timely invoked his grievance rights, including his right to a hearing, and attached a copy of the Tyson Report and a letter report from Dr. Szuster. Id. at ¶¶ 64-65. These reports, Thakral alleges, confirm that both doctors diagnosed Thakral with "learning disabilities, including attention deficit disorder and dyslexia," and causally connected these mental conditions to Thakral's poor academic performance. Id. at ¶ 66. In Dr. Szuster's report, he suggested that intervention would remedy Thakral's performance issues. Id. at ¶ 67. The Tyson Report recommended several accommodations, including additional time to complete tests; more visual learning opportunities; rephrasing questions; peer review work; additional faculty mentorship; recording lectures; appointing a qualified reader for examinations; text-to-speech software; and written and verbal feedback.Id. at ¶ 68. At Dr. Powers' request, Dr. Tyson detailed her recommended accommodations in a June 1, 2017 letter and addressed the questions Dr. Powers posed. Id. at ¶¶ 69-71.
On July 14, 2017, Dr. Powers sent Thakral a letter, informing Thakral that the Program could grant some of Dr. Tyson's proposed accommodations and requested clarification on others. Id. at ¶ 73. Dr. Tyson addressed Dr. Powers' concerns on August 5, 2017. Id. at ¶ 73.
Dr. Powers issued a Second Notice of Prospective Dismissal to Thakral on November 21, 2017 (Second Notice), which Thakral opposed pursuant to his grievance rights under the Contract. Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 74. In the Second Notice, Dr. Powers allegedly stated that "[t]he Program does not find or state your condition constitutes a disability but nevertheless has proceeded with considering potential accommodations." Id. at ¶ 75. In addition, Dr. Powers raised an independent basis for Thakral's prospective dismissal: Thakral failed to disclose in his Program application information regarding his performance at the first medical school he attended. Id. at ¶ 76. Thakral, however, contends he disclosed this information and Dr. Powers' assertion is pretextual. Id. at ¶¶ 77-78.
Thakral avers that his dyslexia does not impair his ability to read and write numbers and understand charts and graphs, as allegedly evidenced by his "superiorperformance" on math tests and Dr. Tyson's opinion that Thakral's disability does not cause him to have difficulty comprehending charts and graphs or cause him to transpose numbers. See id. at ¶¶ 80, 81. Nonetheless, Dr. Powers allegedly maintained that the accommodations proposed by Dr. Tyson were not reasonable, endangered patient safety, and would pose an undue hardship on the Program. Id. at ¶ 79.
After a grievance hearing on January 30, 2018, Defendants informed Thakral on February 1, 2018 that his employment with the Program was terminated. Id. at ¶ 82.
Thakral timely filed a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging claims of disability discrimination. Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 22. On November 28, 2018, the EEOC issued: (1) a "Notice of Charge of Discrimination" to HRPI with assigned EEOC Charge No. 486-2019-00103 (hereinafter HRPI Charge No. 103), Dkt. No. 12-6; and (2) a "Notice of Charge of Discrimination" to the University with assigned Charge No. 486-2019-00104 (hereinafter University Charge No. 104), Dkt. No. 12-7.1 Both notices state thatThakral's charge is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
On December 6, 2018, the EEOC sent two separate letters to Thakral. In one of the letters, only HRPI is designated as the respondent and only HRPI Charge No. 103 is referenced. Dkt. No. 20-2. In the other letter, only the University is designated as the respondent and only University Charge No. 104 is referenced. Dkt. No. 20-3. Each letter states,
On April 5, 2019, the EEOC sent Thakral a letter, noting "Gaurav Thakral v. HAWAII RESIDENCY PROGRAMS INC" and HRPI Charge No. 103 in the heading, and informing Thakral that HRPI's position statement was enclosed. Dkt. No. 19-7 (emphasis in original). On the same day, the EEOC sent a separate letter to Thakral, referencing "Gaurav Thakral v. UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII" and University Charge No. 104 in the heading, and notifying Thakral that the University's position statement was enclosed. Dkt. No. 19-8 (emphasis in original).2
On June 12, 2019, the EEOC sent Thakral a "Notice of Right To Sue (IssuedOn Request)," which references only HRPI Charge No. 103 and contains a "cc" to HRPI at the bottom of the letter (HRPI Right-to-Sue Notice). Dkt. No. 19-9. The notice informed Thakral that he must file his ADA lawsuit "based on the above-numbered charge . . . WITHIN 90 DAYS" of receiving the notice or his right to sue based on the charge would be lost. Id. (emphasis in original). On the same day, the EEOC sent Thakral a separate letter pertaining to and University Charge No. 104. Dkt. No. 19-10. That letter to Thakral...
To continue reading
Request your trial