Court Opinion

ID: 9378985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-14 14:00:28.025357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:28.998345
License: Public Domain

22-398-cv
Koppar v. Orange Regional Medical Center

                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                     FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                           SUMMARY ORDER
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed
on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a
document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an
electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order
must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

       At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at
the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York,
on the 14th day of March, two thousand twenty-three.

PRESENT:           JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
                   MYRNA PÉREZ,
                   ALISON J. NATHAN,
                                Circuit Judges.

DR. SHARDUL KOPPAR,
                  Plaintiff-Appellant,                               22-398-cv

                             v.

ORANGE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, GREATER
HUDSON VALLEY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., AKA
GARNET HEALTH, DR. AAMIR GILANI, DR. SAMER EL
ZARIF, DR. SAJID MIR,
                      Defendants-Appellees.

For Plaintiff-Appellant:                              Seth Marcus, Law Offices of Seth L. Marcus,
                                                      Scarsdale, NY.

For Defendants-Appellees:                             Joseph A. Saccomano, Jr., Esq., Jackson Lewis
                                                      P.C., White Plains, NY.

     Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. (Kenneth M. Karas, Judge).

                                                  1
     UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is
AFFIRMED.

        Plaintiff-Appellant Dr. Shardul Koppar commenced an action against the Orange Regional
Medical Center (“ORMC”) and several other Defendants arising from his termination from ORMC’s
Internal Medicine Residency Program (“IMR Program”). He alleged both discrimination claims under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and New York State Human Rights Law
(“NYSHRL”) as well as contract law claims. In 2022, the District Court granted Defendants’ motion
for summary judgment. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural
history, and the issues on appeal, and we review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Summa v.
Hofstra Univ., 708 F.3d 115, 123 (2d Cir. 2013).

       Regarding the federal and state discrimination claims, we affirm summary judgment because,
as the District Court explained, Spec. App’x 29–39, Plaintiff failed to point to evidence that any
adverse employment action was motivated by religious or national origin discrimination.

       Next, we turn to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim arising from ORMC’s allegedly wrongful
termination of his PGY-2 Contract. On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the District Court erred by
making a factual finding that the text messages were “unwelcome” and by having “simply ignored that
portion of ORMC’s sexual harassment policy that the unwelcome comments must create ‘a hostile
work environment.’” Pl. Br. 19 (citing J.A. 3236).

         Neither contention warrants reversal. First, there existed no triable issue of fact as to the
material question: whether Nutt was in fact uncomfortable and reported the text messages as
inappropriate to her supervisor. Defs. Br. 24 (“Ms. Nutt’s deposition testimony and actions following
the receipt of the text messages demonstrate that she found them unwelcome and inappropriate.”
(citing J.A. 2024–25)). Second, even though the District Court did not expressly discuss whether
Plaintiff’s conduct created a hostile work environment, it noted that Nutt testified under oath that she
found the messages “offensive, inappropriate and they made her feel uncomfortable.” Spec. App’x
47. Because ORMC was reasonably concerned that Plaintiff’s conduct interfered with Nutt’s
performance, we reject Plaintiff’s contention that ORMC lacked cause to terminate Plaintiff.

        The District Court also granted summary judgment against Plaintiff on his claims: (1) that
ORMC breached the contract by failing to provide Plaintiff with a “fair and equitable” grievance
procedure, as provided under his contract at § VII.C, see Spec. App’x 47–50; and (2) asserting tortious
interference with the PGY-2 Contract by Individual Defendants, id. at 53. 1 For the reasons stated by
the District Court, we conclude that summary judgment was appropriately granted on these claims.

   1
      The District Court also granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims
(1) that ORMC failed to provide Plaintiff with a “suitable environment for Program training,” as
provided under § V.A., see Spec. App’x at 50–51; and (2) that ORMC and Greater Hudson Valley
Health System (owner of ORMC) violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, see id. at
51–53. Plaintiff has not appealed the District Court’s decision as to those claims.

                                                   2
                                      CONCLUSION

       We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Plaintiff on appeal and find them to be
without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

                                                  FOR THE COURT:
                                                  Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

                                              3