The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Skretny Chief Judge United States District Judge
Plaintiff Raffi Barsoumian, M.D., commenced this action in November 2006 seeking injunctive relief and damages for Defendants' failure to reinstate him in a medical residency program after he successfully grieved the non-renewal of his employment agreement. Pending before this Court are the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendant University Medical Resident Services, P.C. ("UMRS"), the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Roseanne Berger, M.D., and James Hassett, M.D., and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. These motions are fully briefed and the Court finds oral argument unnecessary. For the reasons that follow, UMRS' motion is denied, the motion of Defendants Berger and Hassett is granted in part and denied in part, and Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is also granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff was admitted to the Surgical Residency Program of University at Buffalo, the State University of New York School of Medicine and Biomedical Science ("UB"), in March 2002. (Complaint, Docket No. 1-4, ¶¶ 22-23; Declaration of James Hassett, M.D., Docket No. 80, ¶ 9). The post-graduate training program for a general surgery resident is typically five years in length, with those training years denominated as PGY1, PGY2, PGY3, PGY4 and PGY5. (Comp. ¶ 9; Hassett Decl. ¶ 5). During each year a surgical resident is required to participate in several hospital rotations. (Compl. ¶ 10; Hassett Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10). UB does not operate its own teaching hospital, but provides the necessary rotations for residents by entering into Affiliate Agreements with area hospitals, including Erie County Medical Center Corporation ("ECMC") and Kaleida Health. (Declaration of Defendant Roseanne Berger, M.D., Docket No. 81, ¶¶ 8-10).
Plaintiff signed a Residency Employment Agreement with UMRS, initially for the 2002-2003 PGY1 year, but subject to successive renewals. (Compl. Ex. A (employment agreement)). The UB Probation and Dismissal Policy requires that non-renewal of the employment agreement be based upon the same criteria established for dismissal. (Compl. Ex. B). Dismissal "may be considered for residents who fail to be removed from probation" if the residents were first informed in writing of their performance problems, "given the opportunity to remediate their deficiencies, and provided feedback on their efforts." (Compl. Ex. B). Automatic dismissal may also result based upon a resident's "[f]ailure to comply with the bylaws and applicable rules, regulations, and procedures at each [UB] affiliated hospital as outlined in the employment contract." Compl. Ex. B. Plaintiff's employment agreement also incorporates by reference, among other things, the Employees' Grievance Procedure and the policy on sexual harassment. (Id. at 4).
In June 2004, shortly after the commencement of Plaintiff's PGY3 year, Plaintiff was placed on probation for six months as a result of his "continued unprofessional behavior." (Hassett Decl. ¶¶ 18, 20-21; Compl. ¶ 43). While on probation, Plaintiff received unsatisfactory evaluations on two of his trauma rotations at ECMC, and various concerns were raised throughout the probationary period by faculty regarding Plaintiff's professionalism, clinical ability, and honesty. (Hasset Decl. ¶ 25-35, Ex. D; Compl. ¶ 44). At the end of his probationary period, Plaintiff was informed that the ECMC surgical faculty had expressed reservations about allowing Plaintiff to return to that facility for completion of the rotations that he had failed to complete satisfactorily. (Hassett Decl. ¶¶ 35-36; Pl's St. Undisputed Facts, Docket No. 84, ¶ 29). Nonetheless, Plaintiff was taken off probation and restored to "good standing," purportedly due to his completion of the educational enhancement process. (Hasset Decl. ¶ 36 Ex D.; Pl's St. Undisputed Facts ¶ 30). Days later, by letter dated January 18, 2005, Defendant James Hassett, M.D., the Residency Program Director, informed Plaintiff that he would be recommending termination of Plaintiff's training at the end of the academic year because of the observations and concerns of the faculty. (Hassett Decl. ¶¶ 1, 37; Pl's St. Undisputed Facts ¶ 31-35).
On February 4, 2005, Hassett was informed by Defendant Roger Siebel, M.D., that, despite having reservations, the consensus of the ECMC staff was to allow Plaintiff to return "and try to remediate him." (Hassett Decl. ¶ 39-40, Ex D; Pl's St. Undisputed Facts ¶ 38). Hassett asserts that "this confirmation was of no value" at that time, in part because Plaintiff could not remediate his trauma rotation at ECMC until after he completed the remaining required PGY3 rotations. (Hassett Decl. ¶ 40). On February 7, 2005, at a meeting which also constituted a Level I grievance meeting, the Executive Committee of the Department of Surgery agreed with the recommendation not to renew Plaintiff's training contract. (Hassett Decl. ¶ 41; Pl's St. Undisputed Facts ¶ 37, 39, 41). Plaintiff requested a Level II grievance hearing and, on July 12, 2005, the Level II Grievance Committee upheld the decision not to renew. (Compl. ¶¶ 66-67; Hassett Decl. ¶ 48 Ex D).
Plaintiff then requested and was granted a Level III review of the non-renewal decision, and a hearing was held on October 31, 2005. (Compl. ¶ 68; Hassett Decl. ¶ 49). During the hearing, the Level III Grievance Committee questioned why Plaintiff was determined to have successfully completed probation when he received two unsatisfactory evaluations. (Hassett Decl. Ex. OO). As reflected in the grievance decision, Hassett asserted that this was done to allow Plaintiff to apply to other programs while completing his PGY3 year in good standing. (Hassett Decl. Ex. OO). The Level III Committee found that because Plaintiff's "removal from probation could reasonably be construed to imply that [Plaintiff] successfully remediated all issues, . . . the decision to then notify him of a non-renewal of his contract [was] inappropriate." (Id.). Although the "process of non-renewal decision making was flawed," the committee noted that its decision did not "imply, in either a positive or negative fashion, that the information contained within [Plaintiff's] file regarding [his] professionalism either supports or negates this conclusion." (Id.).
Plaintiff was restored to payroll in November 2005 and received back pay from June 2005. (Compl. ¶ 71; Hassett Decl. ¶ 50). Although Hassett objected internally to the Level III determination (Affirmation of Andrew P. Fleming, Esq., Docket No. 83, Ex. W), he "tried to clarify whether Plaintiff could indeed return" to ECMC or the Women and Children's Hospital of Buffalo ("WCHB"), a Kaleida Health hospital at which Plaintiff participated in rotations during the spring of 2005. (Hassett Decl. ¶¶ 51-52). According to Hassert, these are the only two UB affiliated hospitals at which the PGY3 trauma and pediatric assignments Plaintiff has not yet completed are available. (Hassett Decl. ¶ 65). At issue with Kaleida Health was a pending sexual harassment claim against Plaintiff for his conduct at WCHB, and Hassett therefore inquired as to whether Plaintiff would be allowed to return for training. (Hassett Decl. ¶¶ 51-53 Ex RR; see Docket No. 76 Exs. N, O). Following an investigation, Kaleida Health staff determined that there was probable cause to conclude that Plaintiff engaged in several inappropriate actions of a sexual nature in violation of Kaleida Health's Unlawful Harassment Policy, and Kaleida Health informed UB in June 2005 that Plaintiff's removal to another clinical assignment was warranted. (Docket No. 76 Exs. N, O). By letter dated February 20, 2006, Kaleida Health again asserted to Defendant Roseanne Berger, Senior Associate Dean for Graduate Medical Education at UB that it did not welcome Plaintiff's presence as a resident and requested that Plaintiff not be assigned to any rotations at a Kaleida Health hospital. (Docket No.76, Ex M).
Similarly, on December 14, 2005, the ECMC surgical staff unanimously voted in Hassett's presence to not allow Plaintiff back for remediation. (Hassett Decl. Exs. TT, WW). Defendant Berger sent Plaintiff a letter dated February 21, 2006, informing Plaintiff that "UB affiliated hospitals advised the UB Office of Graduate Medical Education that they cannot commit to provide you access to their sites for continued residency training." (Docket No. 83 Ex. CC). ECMC correspondence also dated February 21, 2006, however, indicates the organization's understanding that Plaintiff "was removed from the Residency Program by [UB] and has not been reinstated. In the event [Plaintiff] is reinstated, [Defendant Seibel] can initiate a request for corrective action." (Hassett Decl. Ex WW). In light of this, Hassett drafted a letter to Plaintiff indicating that training could be facilitated at ECMC, however, he was directed not to send the message by ECMC's chief executive officer, Michael Young. (Hassett Decl. ¶¶ 58-59 Ex YY). Young's email, dated February 24, 2006, stated that "your legal staff needs to work with our lawyer to understand our position. You may not comment on any action or position ECMC may or may [not] take in any situation." (Hassett Decl. Ex YY (capitalization removed)).
Plaintiff was never returned to residency training, and on July 26, 2006, he was removed from UMRS payroll. (Pl's Statement Undisputed Facts ¶ 64).
Plaintiff commenced the instant action in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County, by filing an Order to Show Cause for Preliminary Injunction and a Summons and Complaint. In his Complaint, he asserted five causes of action alleging that (1) Plaintiff is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from refusing to reinstate him; (2) Defendants Berger, Hassett, and Seibel deprived him of his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (3) Defendants University of Buffalo and UMRS breached the employment contract; (4) Defendants Berger, Hassett, and Seibel tortiously interfered with Plaintiff's existent contractual relationship; and (5) Defendants Berger, Hassett, and Seibel tortiously interfered with Plaintiff's ...