Cases & Developments

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a medical doctor, over the age of forty, and of Egyptian national origin alleged that during his ophthalmology fellowship at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University discriminated against him and retaliated against him based on his national origin and age, under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Plaintiff also brought claims for defamation per se, breach of contract, negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with contractual relations, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (hereinafter referred to as state law claims). Plaintiff was in a two-year fellowship at the University to receive training in ophthalmology. During his time in the program, he alleged one of his supervising physicians mocked his accent, criticized him for mispronunciation, and frequently allowed younger residents to participate in operations more than him. Plaintiff alleges the same supervising physician refused to work with him after expressing unjustified concerns about plaintiff’s skills and issues with patient safety, and after plaintiff brought his concerns to a supervisor, he alleges he was retaliated against when the University shortened his fellowship to one year. Plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and alleges the University subsequently terminated his fellowship. Plaintiff contends that he was informed by the University’s fellowship director that he was terminated because he filed the EEOC complaint, and the fellowship director informed plaintiff’s potential employers and state licensing boards that plaintiff was relieved from seeing patients due to safety concerns. The court allowed the ADEA claim, and Title VII claim based on denial of training opportunities to proceed, based on plaintiff’s allegations that (1) he was over forty years old during the fellowship, (2) the supervising physician provided him with fewer training opportunities than younger residents, (3) the supervising physician expressed concerns about plaintiff’s age to the fellowship director before plaintiff’s fellowship had even started, and (4) plaintiff’s position as a protected class member. However, the court found plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting his claim that his fellowship was shortened and then terminated due to either his age or his national origin, and as such, it dismissed the ADEA and Title VII claims related to the addended length and subsequent termination of the fellowship. It denied the University’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claims, finding plaintiff’s claim that the fellowship director informed him that he was terminated because of his EEOC filing was sufficient to give rise to a plausible inference of retaliation. The court dismissed plaintiff’s state law claims against the University, but allowed the defamation per se claim to proceed against the fellowship director based on the allegation that the director informed plaintiff’s prospective employers that he was terminated due to patient safety concerns. For the same reason, the court permitted the interference with prospective economic advantage claim to proceed. Finally, the court allowed plaintiff to proceed with his wrongful interference with employment contract based on both the fellowship director and supervising physician’s purported knowledge of his employment contract, alleged false allegations made by the supervising physician about plaintiff’s skills with intent to induce the University to breach the contract, and the fellowship director’s steps to allegedly induce the University to breach it’s employment contract with plaintiff based on his filing with the EEOC.