Joshi v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York

Background

Dr. Shailendra Joshi, an anesthesiologist and assistant professor at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, had conducted research at the University for more than 25 years. His research included drug delivery to the brain in patients with brain tumors and the possible development of a ventilator and ventilator pump for treating COVID-19 patients.

In 2015, Dr. Joshi reported what he believed was inaccurate, falsified, or fabricated data in a research article written by a senior faculty member. He later complained of harassment, retaliation, and reductions in his department-supported research time. He believed the defendants later took additional retaliatory actions, including deciding to close his lab.

The defendants said the lab’s closure resulted from a lack of external funding. Dr. Joshi’s external funding ended in March 2017. The Department generally provided two years of temporary funding when a researcher lost external funding, but it funded Dr. Joshi’s lab for more than three years. The lab cost the Department approximately $21,000 per month. After Dr. Joshi did not obtain new external funding, the Department decided to close the lab as of June 30, 2020. It did not remove his equipment or deny him access to the lab at the time of the motion, offered to store the equipment, and stated that the lab could reopen if he obtained external funding.

Dr. Joshi filed his motion for a preliminary injunction on July 22, 2020. A preliminary injunction is a court order issued before a final judgment that temporarily requires or prevents certain conduct. The court had previously denied his request for a temporary restraining order on July 23, 2020.

Legal standard

To obtain a preliminary injunction, Dr. Joshi had to show irreparable harm, meaning harm that could not adequately be repaired later with money or other relief. He also had to show either a likelihood of success on the merits or sufficiently serious legal questions combined with a balance of hardships strongly favoring him, and he had to show that an injunction would serve the public interest. Because he did not satisfy the standard for a prohibitory injunction, the court stated that he also did not satisfy the higher standard for a mandatory injunction.

Irreparable harm

The court held that Dr. Joshi had not shown likely irreparable harm. It recognized that closing the lab could require dismantling equipment he had acquired and calibrated over many years, could end the lab’s New York State certification for storing and using narcotics, and could interfere with current and future research. But the court found those consequences remediable because the defendants offered to store the equipment, Dr. Joshi could potentially reassemble it if the lab reopened, and he could reapply for certification.

The court also noted that the Department was moving the labs of five other researchers and that Dr. Joshi’s technician would receive four months of funding to help organize and analyze existing research. The court further relied on Dr. Joshi’s delay: he had known for years about the threat to close the lab and had been definitively told in December 2019 that it would close on June 30, 2020 if he did not obtain external funding, but he did not file the motion until July 22, 2020.

Merits of the retaliation theory

The court held that Dr. Joshi had not raised sufficiently serious questions about whether closing the lab was retaliation for his 2015 research-misconduct report. The court emphasized that the person who made the closure decision, Dr. Angsar Brambrink, joined the Department more than a year after the report. The court also found that the passage of several years and the involvement of a new decision-maker weakened the claimed connection between the report and the closure.

The court rejected Dr. Joshi’s reliance on the dispute with his lab technician as evidence of retaliation. According to the court, the technician had brought the matter to human resources after alleging that Dr. Joshi harassed him and demanded that he travel to the lab or Dr. Joshi’s home during COVID-19 stay-at-home restrictions. The court noted that the technician had not been reassigned and remained available to assist with Dr. Joshi’s research.

The court also found that the defendants had presented persuasive funding-based reasons for the closure. Dr. Joshi had not obtained external funding despite multiple unsuccessful grant applications, and the Department had provided temporary funding beyond its customary period. The court therefore concluded that the defendants had offered reasonable, non-retaliatory reasons for closing the lab.

The four remaining claims were breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and violation of New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law § 715-b, which requires covered nonprofit corporations to maintain whistleblower protections. The court explained that each claim required Dr. Joshi to show retaliatory conduct or a failure to prevent retaliation. Its ruling on the preliminary-injunction motion did not enter a final judgment on those claims.

Balance of hardships and public interest

The court held that the balance of hardships favored the defendants. Dr. Joshi could seek external funding and potentially reopen the lab, while an injunction would require the defendants to continue spending approximately $21,000 per month and would limit their ability to use the lab space and allocate resources.

The court also held that Dr. Joshi had not shown that keeping the lab open was in the public interest. Although the court recognized his scientific achievements, it concluded that research universities should generally be able to decide how to allocate their resources. The court declined to replace the defendants’ and external funding organizations’ judgments about where research funding should be directed.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl denied Dr. Joshi’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court directed the Clerk to close Docket No. 100. The opinion did not state that the underlying claims were dismissed or finally resolved.