Kairam v. West Side GI

Background

Indira Kairam brought a consolidated action against West Side GI, LLC (WSGI), Peter Distler, M.D., and Ricardo Pou, M.D. She alleged discrimination and various other claims related to her membership interest in WSGI. The court considered Kairam’s motions for partial summary judgment on trade-secret misappropriation, payment under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for the 2017 benefit-plan year, and payment under the Equal Pay Act and related New York laws. It also considered Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended denying Kairam’s partial-summary-judgment motions and granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion. Both sides objected. Judge Torres overruled all objections and adopted the report and recommendation in full.

Rulings on Claims

The court denied Kairam’s requested partial summary judgment. It granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

The court entered judgment for Defendants on the following claims or portions of claims:

- Counts 1, 15, and 21, involving Equal Pay Act claims. - Count 2, involving age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, except for the age-related hostile work environment claim. - Count 3, involving Title VII discrimination, to the extent based on sex discrimination arising from membership interest. - Counts 5 and 24, involving New York State Human Rights Law discrimination claims, to the extent based on sex discrimination on or before October 10, 2019, arising from membership interest. - Counts 10 and 26, involving unfair competition claims. - Counts 12 and 32, involving unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, except for claims concerning payment for Kairam’s work on the billing committee. - Count 13, involving a New York Labor Law section 198 claim, to the extent based on equal-pay allegations. - Counts 14 and 27, involving conversion, misappropriation, and waste, except for Kairam’s claims concerning misappropriation of her trade secret and waste. - Count 23, involving breach of fiduciary duty, to the extent related to WSGI’s retirement plan. - Count 29, involving tortious interference with contract.

The court denied summary judgment on Kairam’s ERISA claims because factual questions remained about whether WSGI was an ERISA fiduciary and, if so, whether it breached its duties. The court also held that the portion of Count 23 concerning WSGI’s retirement plan was barred by ERISA.

The court denied summary judgment on Kairam’s federal and state trade-secret claims because factual disputes remained, including whether Kairam possessed a trade secret and whether Defendants misappropriated it. The court held that the unfair competition allegations based on the same alleged misappropriation were duplicative of the trade-secret claims.

The court also found factual disputes concerning whether Kairam was an employee under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Those disputes prevented summary judgment on the remaining claims under those statutes. The court likewise left unresolved claims involving race, color, national origin, and retaliation based on alleged failures to refer cases from the Gould practice, as well as certain sex- and age-discrimination claims.

Claims Remaining

The claims surviving summary judgment included Kairam’s age-related hostile work environment claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; certain Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law discrimination claims; her federal and state trade-secret claims; age-discrimination claims under New York law; breach of contract; unjust enrichment and quantum meruit concerning billing-committee work; an alternative New York Labor Law section 198 claim; waste and common-law trade-secret claims; retaliation claims; ERISA claims; and breach of fiduciary duty claims unrelated to WSGI’s retirement plan.

Judge Torres directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the listed motions. The opinion does not enter a final disposition of the claims that survived summary judgment.