Ikedilo v. Statter

Background

Ojinika Ikedilo, M.D., a Black woman of Nigerian descent and former surgical resident at Montefiore Medical Center, sued Mindy Statter, M.D., Jody Kaban, M.D., Scott Melvin, M.D., and Montefiore. She alleged discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment based on race, national origin, sex, pregnancy, and disability. She brought claims under Section 1981, Title VI, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title IX, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also asserted state common-law claims and claimed that defendants failed to accommodate her alleged disability and pregnancy.

The complaint described disputes over pregnancy-related work concerns, evaluations, promotion from postgraduate year four to year five, repeated surgery-residency requirements, examination scores, termination from the residency program, an evaluation needed for a fellowship, and a later request for another opportunity to take the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Statute of Limitations

The court held that the Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504 claims were subject to a three-year limitations period. Because Ikedilo filed the action on October 28, 2019, claims under those statutes based on events before October 28, 2016, were time-barred.

The parties agreed that the Section 1981 claims had a four-year limitations period. The court held that the Section 1981 claim concerning the 2015 failure to promote Ikedilo to postgraduate year five accrued in June 2015, when she learned that she had to repeat postgraduate year four, and was therefore time-barred. The court held that the Section 1981 claim concerning the delayed evaluation sent to Westchester Medical Center in July 2016 was timely, but addressed that claim separately and dismissed it on other grounds. The court also dismissed any remaining claims based on events outside the applicable limitations periods.

Claims Against Individual Defendants

The court held that individual defendants could not be held liable under Title VI, Title IX, or Section 504. It therefore dismissed those claims against Statter, Kaban, and Melvin.

Failure to Promote in 2016

Ikedilo alleged that defendants’ failure to promote her to postgraduate year five in 2016 was unlawful discrimination under Section 1981, Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504. Applying the pleading standards associated with the burden-shifting framework used in discrimination cases, the court held that she had not alleged facts giving rise to a plausible inference of discriminatory intent.

The court noted that the complaint did not identify discriminatory comments about her race, sex, pregnancy, or disability. It also relied on the complaint’s allegations that Ikedilo had scored below the 30th percentile on the relevant examination in 2015 and 2016 and had received negative evaluations. The court further noted that allegations about white and Jewish residents contained only in Ikedilo’s opposition affidavit were not part of the complaint and could not be considered on this motion. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the discrimination claims concerning the 2016 failure to promote.

Delayed Evaluation for Westchester Medical Center

The court dismissed Ikedilo’s Section 1981 claim concerning Statter’s alleged delay in sending an evaluation summary to Westchester Medical Center. The court concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege that race was the necessary cause of the delay. It also concluded that Ikedilo had not plausibly alleged an injury from the delay because Statter later said the evaluation would be sent, Ikedilo’s salary and benefits would be restored, and Ikedilo successfully completed the fellowship.

Retaliation

The court dismissed the retaliation claims because the complaint did not plausibly allege that Ikedilo engaged in protected activity. Although she complained that conditioning the evaluation on her resignation amounted to “blackmail,” the complaint did not allege that she told defendants she believed she was being discriminated against because of race, national origin, sex, pregnancy, or disability.

Failure to Accommodate

The court dismissed the Title IX and Section 504 failure-to-accommodate claims. Ikedilo requested another opportunity to take the examination after failing to score above the 30th percentile. The court held that this request sought a substantial change to the residency program rather than a reasonable accommodation required by Section 504. The court also stated that the Title IX claim would fail for the same reason even if Ikedilo’s thyroid condition were pregnancy-related. Because of that conclusion, the court did not decide defendants’ alternative argument that Ikedilo was not otherwise qualified for the residency program.

Hostile Work Environment

The court dismissed the hostile-work-environment claims under Section 1981, Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504. It held that Ikedilo had not plausibly alleged discriminatory conduct that was severe or pervasive. The complaint did not identify a derogatory comment about her race, sex, pregnancy, or disability, or conduct that sufficiently altered the conditions of her educational or work environment.

State and City Claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case—over the claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and state common law. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court allowed Ikedilo to amend her complaint by October 30, 2020, if she had a good-faith basis to do so. The opinion does not state any later result from that opportunity.