IKOSSI, MD v. ST MARY'S REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
MARIA IKOSSI, M.D., 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:22-cv-00023-LEW
)
ST. MARY’S REGIONAL 	)
MEDICAL CENTER, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
The matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27).
“To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Guadalupe-
Báez v. Pesquera, 819 F.3d 509, 514 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009)) (cleaned up). Plausible “means something more than merely possible,”
Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50, 55 (1st Cir. 2012), but is “not
akin to a ‘probability requirement.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Ultimately, “a well-pleaded
complaint may proceed even if . . . recovery is very remote and unlikely.” 	Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007) (quotation omitted).
Because Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint sets forth plausible claims for relief,
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied.
Case 2:22-cv-00023-LEW Document 36 Filed 02/09/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Background
Dr. Maria Ikossi is a surgeon of Greek Cypriot lineage in her 70s. Although she has
lived in the United States since age 17, Dr. Ikossi speaks English with an accent. Dr. Ikossi
also has a physical disability related to her vision, though she denies that it impedes her
work as a surgeon.
In 2018, Defendant St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center, acting through Defendant
Christopher 	Bowe, 	MD, 	subjected 	Dr. 	Ikossi 	to 	what 	Dr. 	Ikossi 	describes 	as 	an
“unwarranted and degrading fitness-for-duty exam by a psychologist,” Am. Compl. ¶ 2,
based on concerns that Dr. Ikossi alleges were mere pretexts for discrimination. As alleged,
the examination requirement was unprecedented. 	When Dr. Ikossi initially refused to
submit to what she regarded as a discriminatory requirement, St. Mary’s promptly
suspended her clinical privileges. Dr. Ikossi later acquiesced and passed the examination.
Dr. Ikossi alleges that in the course of proceedings, St. Mary’s deviated from certain
standard practices to Dr. Ikossi’s disadvantage and ultimately imposed a measure of
discipline despite the positive assessments given not only by the examining psychologist
but also by an ad hoc committee that St. Mary’s separately tasked with reviewing Dr.
Ikossi’s practice.
In 2019, St. Mary’s required Dr. Ikossi to perform additional work in its breast
clinic. 	Dr. Ikossi did so, despite the availability of two male doctors who, like her, are
“general surgeons” in St. Mary’s employ. For the first few months, 	St. Mary’s failed to
act on Dr. Ikossi’s requests for compensation for the additional work. St. Mary’s has since
hired a male surgeon to take over the work in the breast clinic. 	Dr. Ikossi alleges “on
Case 2:22-cv-00023-LEW Document 36 Filed 02/09/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
information and belief” that the new male surgeon “is paid more than Dr. Ikossi for the
same surgeries at the breast clinic.” Am. Compl. ¶ 88.
Discussion
In the first count of her amended complaint, Dr. Ikossi alleges that Defendants’
conduct violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII, the Americans
with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. Defendants argue that Dr. Ikossi fails to
state a claim of employment discrimination and ask that the Court dismiss her case. I find
that Dr. Ikossi has alleged plausible claims under each of the aforementioned federal
statutes.
Also in her first count, Dr. Ikossi alleges that Defendants deprived her of equal rights
under the law, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 	This is the only claim that runs against
Dr. Bowe. 	Defendants argue that Dr. Ikossi fails to state the claim because her claim is
based on alleged negative attitudes toward the fact that she was not born in the United
States 	and/or 	her 	accent 	rather 	than 	any 	ancestral 	or 	ethnic 	characteristic 	per 	se.
Defendants’ line drawing in this regard has an air of artificiality and I am not persuaded at
this juncture that it is even based on good law. I find that Dr. Ikossi has alleged a plausible
claim of discrimination based on “race,” to include “ancestry” and “ethnic characteristics.”
Saint Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 613 (1987).
Also in her first count, Dr. Ikossi alleges that Defendants violated “the prohibition
in 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A) against requiring a medical examination ‘unless such
examination . . . is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity,’” and
that this violation is probative of the merits of her disability discrimination claim. 	Am.
Case 2:22-cv-00023-LEW Document 36 Filed 02/09/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Compl. ¶ 95. Defendants approach the allegation as a freestanding claim and argue for its
dismissal. 	I interpret the allegation as asserting the breach of a regulatory duty, which
alleged breach could be probative of Dr. Ikossi’s disability discrimination claim. 	I
therefore deny the request for dismissal.
In the second count of her amended complaint, Dr. Ikossi alleges, on information
and belief, that she was denied equal pay for certain work she was made to perform at St.
Mary’s breast clinic in 2019 and 2020, in violation of Maine’s equal pay law, 26 M.R.S. §
628, 626-A. 	Defendants argue that the claim should be dismissed because it is based
merely on information and belief. 	While that might be an appropriate ruling in another
case, here Dr. Ikossi also alleges that she was made to work at the clinic with no additional
compensation 	for 	months, 	despite 	what 	was 	evidently 	a 	reasonable 	request 	for
compensation (St. Mary’s eventually paid Dr. Ikossi for her work), and that St. Mary’s
only offered additional compensation after repeated requests. Given this peculiar, alleged
circumstance, I find that Dr. Ikossi’s allegations state a plausible unequal pay claim at
present, despite being based in part on an “information and belief” allegation.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) is
DENIED.
S O ORDERED .
Dated this 9th day of February, 2023.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:22-cv-00023-LEW Document 36 Filed 02/09/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>