Karupaiyan v. CVS Health Corporation

Background

Palani Karupaiyan, representing himself, alleged that he experienced race and age discrimination, failure to accommodate a disability, failure to receive timely wages, and battery during a technology engagement from June through August 2019. He worked at Aetna-AHM through APN Consulting, which had contracted with Karupaiyan Consulting, Inc. Karupaiyan testified that Aetna-AHM supervisor Lakshmi Kalyani Bellamkonda assigned his daily tasks and that he was terminated after approximately three months. He also alleged that Bellamkonda and others made racially offensive comments, that his request to move away from dust and debris was denied, that he did not receive checks sent to an earlier address, and that Robert Denner and Purvi Jhala physically assaulted him during his termination.

After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a ruling entered without a trial when the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on a legally important issue.

Employment relationships

The court applied a multi-factor common-law agency test to determine whether Karupaiyan was an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of several discrimination and disability statutes. The court found a genuine dispute about whether Karupaiyan had an employment relationship with Aetna-AHM. Evidence supporting that conclusion included Aetna-AHM’s daily supervision, its assignment of his work, his regular work schedule at its office, its provision of equipment, and his work on Aetna-AHM products.

The court ruled that Karupaiyan could not establish an employment relationship with CVS, Aetna-AHM’s parent company, because the record showed no CVS involvement in his workplace or labor decisions. The court also ruled that Karupaiyan was not an employee of APN. APN facilitated the engagement and transmitted payments, but did not assign or supervise his work, provide his work equipment, or make the decision to terminate his Aetna-AHM engagement. The court separately rejected Karupaiyan’s arguments that APN was part of an integrated enterprise with Aetna-AHM or was his joint employer.

Race-discrimination claims

The court granted summary judgment to CVS and APN on the race-discrimination claims. As to APN, the court ruled both that Karupaiyan lacked the required employment relationship for claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law, and that the evidence did not show that race caused the failure to receive payment or the termination. The court also dismissed the New York City Human Rights Law claims against APN and its employees because Karupaiyan contracted through Karupaiyan Consulting rather than as an individual covered by that law at the relevant time.

The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on the race-discrimination claims alleging that Karupaiyan failed to receive payment. The record showed that Aetna-AHM approved the relevant timesheets and paid APN, while APN issued checks to Karupaiyan Consulting. The checks were returned as undeliverable, and the court found no evidence connecting the payment problem to race discrimination.

The court denied summary judgment on the race-discrimination claims concerning Karupaiyan’s termination by Aetna-AHM. Karupaiyan testified that Bellamkonda, who supervised him and participated in the termination decision, used the phrase “old black Madrasi” in connection with his termination. The court held that a jury could find the statement showed racial bias and could decide whether race was a motivating factor under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law or the required cause under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court allowed related Section 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law claims against Bellamkonda individually to proceed, as well as the New York City Human Rights Law termination claim against Aetna-AHM and Bellamkonda.

The court also allowed Karupaiyan’s New York City Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claims against Aetna-AHM and Bellamkonda to proceed. It considered Bellamkonda’s alleged “black apple” comment as part of that claim, even though the court treated the comment as insufficiently connected to the termination decision when analyzing the termination claim.

Age discrimination

The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on Karupaiyan’s New York City Human Rights Law age-discrimination claims. The court rejected his assertion that a younger employee replaced him, relying on testimony that the employee had been hired several weeks before Karupaiyan’s engagement ended. The court also found that Bellamkonda’s use of the word “old,” without stronger supporting evidence, was not enough to allow a jury to find age discrimination.

Disability accommodation

The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on Karupaiyan’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Karupaiyan relied on situs inversus totalis, a condition in which the body’s organs are arranged as a mirror image of normal anatomy, and alleged that dust at his workspace caused coughing and chest pain. The court found that his medical records did not show a respiratory impairment or that the condition substantially limited a major life activity. Without evidence of a qualifying disability related to the requested accommodation, the court concluded that the accommodation claims could not proceed.

Wage-payment claims

The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on the claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law alleging failure to make timely wage payments. The court did not decide whether Karupaiyan was an employee under those laws. Instead, it ruled that the undisputed evidence showed that Aetna-AHM and APN fulfilled their payment obligations. APN sent payments for the work and notice period to the address specified in the agreement, followed up after checks were returned, and later provided a replacement check for the full balance, which Karupaiyan deposited. The court also noted that his $68 hourly rate exceeded New York’s minimum wage.

Battery and final disposition

The defendants did not seek summary judgment on the battery claim against Denner and Jhala. Because some federal claims remained, the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over that state-law claim.

The court’s order states that the defendants’ motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in part. Claims remaining for trial were: (1) Karupaiyan’s Title VII, Section 1981, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law race-discrimination claims against Aetna-AHM concerning his termination; (2) his Section 1981, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law race-discrimination claims against Bellamkonda concerning the termination; (3) his New York City Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claims against Aetna-AHM and Bellamkonda; and (4) his common-law battery claim against Denner and Jhala. The court stated that all other claims were dismissed against all defendants and directed the parties to appear for a conference to schedule trial.