Bassi v. New York Medical College

Background

Harmeetinder Bassi, M.D., was a resident in a three-year Family Medicine Residency Program created through an affiliation agreement involving New York Medical College, Phelps Memorial Hospital Association, and Northwell Health, Inc. The program’s outpatient clinic was operated by Northwell Health, Inc. doing business as Open Door Family Medical Group. Phelps employed program administrators, including Program Director Shantie Harkisoon, M.D. New York Medical College was the sponsoring institution.

Bassi practices Sikhism and covered his head in public during his residency, usually with a patka and sometimes with a turban. The opinion states that Dr. Harkisoon told Core Faculty during Bassi’s first year that he looked like a “thug” when wearing only the patka. Bassi filed a complaint with Open Door’s and Phelps’s human-resources departments. The opinion states that Dr. Harkisoon later apologized, acknowledged Bassi could wear religious articles, and made no further comments about Bassi’s religion after the January 28, 2016 meeting.

Bassi received repeated evaluations identifying clinical and academic deficiencies. The evaluations cited problems including medical knowledge, patient-care skills, diagnosis and treatment planning, documentation, timely patient encounters, and the ability to work independently. The Clinical Competency Committee placed him on action and remediation plans, denied promotion to the third year, and later terminated his employment. On appeal, the Appeals Committee reinstated him to complete outstanding rotations under different supervision, but did not promote him to the third year. Bassi rejected reinstatement as a second-year resident and alleged that he had been constructively discharged.

Motions and claims

Open Door, Phelps, and New York Medical College each moved for summary judgment on all claims. Bassi cross-moved for partial summary judgment on his breach-of-contract and tortious-interference claims. The amended complaint asserted workplace discrimination, retaliation, breach of contract, and tortious interference. The court also addressed claims seeking individual liability against Dr. Harkisoon.

Discrimination claims

Bassi asserted race- and religion-based discrimination under Section 1981, Title VII, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The court construed the claims as involving both race and religion because the opinion describes Sikhism as having developed among people from the Punjab region of the Indian subcontinent.

The court assumed, without deciding, that Bassi had established the initial requirements for a discrimination claim. It held that the defendants had presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying promotion: Bassi’s deficient clinical performance. The court relied on multiple evaluations from instructors over approximately three years, including evaluations stating that Bassi could not consistently apply medical knowledge safely and independently, diagnose patients appropriately, develop treatment plans, or perform at the level expected of a third-year resident.

The court held that Bassi had not produced sufficient evidence that this explanation was a pretext for discrimination. It considered Bassi’s positive evaluations from some physicians, his performance in rotations outside the clinic, his in-training examination score, and the Appeals Committee’s decisions. The court concluded that this evidence did not show that the Core Faculty’s evaluations were unworthy of belief or that religion was more likely the reason for the denial of promotion. It also held that alleged inconsistencies in supervision, videotaping of patient encounters, notice, academic credit, and implementation of the Appeals Committee’s decision did not establish discriminatory intent or pretext.

The court therefore dismissed with prejudice Bassi’s discrimination claims, identified as Counts I–III.

Retaliation claims

The court held that Bassi failed to establish a causal connection between his human-resources complaint and the denial of promotion. The record showed that performance concerns existed several months before the complaint, and the post-complaint promotion decisions were made unanimously by the Clinical Competency Committee. The court found no evidence that committee members discussed the complaint.

The court further held that, even assuming Bassi had established an initial retaliation case, he had not shown that the defendants’ performance-based reasons were pretextual or that his complaint was the necessary cause of the denial of promotion. The court dismissed with prejudice the retaliation claims, identified as Counts I, II, and IV.

Individual-liability claims

Because the underlying discrimination and retaliation claims did not survive summary judgment, the court held that individual liability could not attach to Dr. Harkisoon. It dismissed with prejudice the individual-liability claims identified as Counts V and VI.

Breach of contract

The court dismissed with prejudice the breach-of-contract claim against New York Medical College because it was not a party to the contract at issue.

As to Phelps, Bassi alleged that Phelps failed to provide timely notice of non-promotion and non-renewal, withheld academic credit for completed rotations, denied him the contractually promised process, interfered with the Appeals Committee, and failed to implement the Committee’s decision. The court held that Bassi had not shown a genuine dispute of material fact concerning any breach.

The court concluded that Bassi received notice before the handbook’s February 1 deadline that he might not be promoted unless he improved, and that the program repeatedly extended his opportunities for remediation. It also held that the contract and handbook did not entitle Bassi to academic credit for rotations that the program determined he needed to repeat to obtain the competencies required for third-year promotion. The court found that Bassi received an appeals process and that the Appeals Committee twice reinstated him. It rejected the argument that the program improperly changed the Committee’s decision, reasoning that the program could not guarantee placement outside the program and that the Committee had not directed promotion to the third year.

The court dismissed with prejudice the breach-of-contract claim, identified as Count VII.

Tortious interference with contract

Bassi asserted tortious interference with contract against New York Medical College. The court held that this claim failed because Bassi could not establish an underlying breach of contract. It dismissed with prejudice the tortious-interference claim. The opinion identifies this claim as Count VIII in the section heading but contains a typographical inconsistency in the final sentence.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Roman granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment and denied Bassi’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed Bassi’s claims with prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the defendants, and closed the case.