United States District Court, E.D. New York
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
M. Cogan, U.S.D.J.
Saroja Singa brings this national-origin
employment-discrimination case under Title VII and state and
local law, alleging that she was discriminated against,
subjected to a hostile work environment, and retaliated
against for complaining about the alleged
discrimination. Defendant Corizon Health, Inc., has moved
to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to plead sufficient
facts to state a claim in her amended complaint. With respect
to her federal and state claims, plaintiff has not stated a
claim, and those claims are therefore dismissed. I decline to
exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's
remaining claims under New York City law.
OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
arguably factual and non-conclusory allegations of the
amended complaint are as follows: Plaintiff is a physician of
Indian descent. She began working for defendant as a doctor
in 2001, when defendant took over the contract for supplying
medical services at Rikers Island (presumably with the New
York City Department of Corrections, although that is not
alleged). Before then, plaintiff had worked in the same
capacity at Rikers Island, but the prior contractor (her
prior employer) was St. Barnabas Hospital.
had no problems until 2011, when defendant adopted a new
computer system for maintaining medical records. Before
plaintiff could complete her training on the new system, as
all medical staff were required to do, she was transferred to
the Communicable Disease Unit (“CDU”). The CDU is
a highly desired assignment for Rikers Island staff
supervisor in the CDU was Dr. Aung (first name unknown), who
is of Chinese-Burmese descent. On plaintiff's first day
in the CDU, Dr. Aung ignored her when she greeted him. After
joining the CDU, plaintiff was placed on a performance
improvement plan for the new computer program. Plaintiff did
not complete the training for the new computer system under
Dr. Aung during her first six months, but she eventually
completed the training in only six hours under another
were other Chinese-speaking personnel in the CDU, and Dr.
Aung would speak to them in Chinese, which plaintiff did not
understand. From 2011 to 2015, Dr. Aung gave plaintiff bad
write-ups that she feels she did not deserve. (They are
described in some detail in the amended complaint.). Some of
these write-ups were rescinded when plaintiff proved to Dr.
Aung that he was wrong. On one occasion, plaintiff was
written up for prescribing Tylenol and Naprosyn for a
patient; another doctor, Dr. Maungoo, who is of
Chinese-Burmese descent, had previously made the same
prescription for the patient, but was not written up. On
another occasion, Dr. Maungoo replaced an oral methadone
prescription with injectable methadone, which would have
threatened the patient's life had nurses not caught the
error. Dr. Aung did not write up Dr. Maungoo for this
mistake. On another occasion, plaintiff was written up for
ordering x-rays for a patient; Dr. Aung rescinded the
write-up when plaintiff showed that she had not ordered the
x-rays, but Dr. Aung did not write up the (unnamed)
Chinese-Burmese doctor who had ordered them.
occasion, plaintiff was assigned to four different units in
an 8-hour shift (this is apparently called “floating,
” and is allegedly dangerous because each unit is
managed differently with slightly different procedures),
which did not happen to any other doctors. On two occasions,
plaintiff's assigned shift was reassigned to Dr. Win
(first name unknown), who is of Chinese-Burmese descent, and
plaintiff had to float. On many (unspecified) occasions,
plaintiff had to float for more than half of her weekly
shift, and sometimes in the middle of her shift.
repeatedly requested overtime work, which Dr. Aung denied,
but gave to (unnamed) physicians of Chinese-Burmese descent.
One such doctor was able to double his original shifts, and
Dr. Maungoo and Dr. Win received overtime on a weekly basis.
Aung did not permit plaintiff to use his office. Other
(unnamed) non-Indian doctors were allowed to use his office.
made several complaints that Dr. Aung was giving
(unspecified) preferential treatment to Burmese doctors. The
first was on March 21, 2014, sent to
“management.” On June 28, 2015, plaintiff sent an
email complaining “of the above discriminatory
treatment, ” again to “management.” On
August 2, 2015, she complained to Dr. Cintron (first name and
position unknown) that Dr. Aung was denying overtime to
doctors who were not of Chinese-Burmese descent. In response
to this last complaint, defendant's Department of Human
Resources scheduled a meeting between plaintiff, Dr. Aung,
and Dr. Aung's (unnamed) supervisors. At the meeting, the
supervisors “actually stood up, ” and walked out,
saying that plaintiff was “picking on” Dr. Aung.
No. action came of the meeting.
contract with the Department of Corrections ended on December
20, 2015. A new contractor (unnamed, but apparently the New
York City Health & Hospitals Corporation) took over the
medical-services contract at Rikers Island. Most of
defendant's workers at Riker's Island were re-hired
by the new provider, but plaintiff was not one of
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009), and Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007),
require a plaintiff seeking to avoid dismissal to plead
factual allegations in her complaint sufficient to raise a
right to relief above the speculative level. See also
Brown v. Daikin America, Inc., 756 F.3d 219, 228 n.10
(2d Cir. 2014). A complaint must allege “enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Starr v. Sony BMG ...