filed in forma pauperis court stamped 962015 document

7/24/2019 Filed in Forma Pauperis Court Stamped 962015 Document

1/26

UNITED STATES

COURT

OF APPEALS FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT

Thurgood

Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500

MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT

_1_5_ _1_3_2_8 = a = p = t i = o n ~ [ u = s e ~ s h = o = r t ~ t i = t l = e ] . _ _

In Forma Pauperis

statement of relief sought:

against

Leena Varughese, M.D.

LL I

Plaintiff Defendant

[ljAppellant/Petitioner Appellee/Respondent

pending

~

Varughese v Mount Sinai Medical Center et al

OPPOSING PARTY:

Mount Sinai Medical Center et al

OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Rory McEvoy

~

[name

of

attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]

Blank Rome

P

405 Lexington Avenue

New York,

Y

10174-0208

from:

Southern District of New York - Judge McMahon

e check ap propria te boxes:

o ~ n o t i ~ o p p o s i n g counsel required by Local Rule 27 .1 :

LL I

YeslJNo explain):

position on motion:

LJ UnopposedDopposed

[ lpon ' t

Know

Yes O o llJoon t Know

FOR

EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS

AND

INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:

Has request for relief been made below?

Has this rel ief been previously sought

in

this Court?

D Yes l l JNo

0 Y e s l l JNo

Requested return date and explanation of emergency:

oral argument on motion requested? D Yes ll No requests

for

oral argument will not necessarily be granted)

of

appeal been set?

D Yes l l JNo f yes, enter date:

r : ~ 1Jtorney:

. ~ ' - ~ ~ - - = = = - = _ , , , , _ - _ D a t e :

09/06/2015

rev. 12-13)

Service by: lllcM/ECF O othe r [Attach proofofservice]

-- -

Case 15-1328, Document 31, 09/06/2015, 1592687, Page1 of 26


2/26

Motion for In Forma Pauperis Memorandum

o

Law

Varughese v. Mount Sinai Medical Center SDNY 12cv8812, 2nd Cir. 15-1538, is a prima

facie case

of

discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment with torts, and with

questions

of

violations

of

FMLA, which was called a blockbuster lawsuit as per New York

Post Mt. Sinai docs drank on job: axed resident article on December 16, 2012 by Kathianne

Boniello, and see the memorandum

of

law from the motion to dismiss. Varughese v. Mount Sinai

Medical Center,

US

Dist Ct, SD

NY,

2012 Civ 8812, Not Reported in

F.

Supp.2d, McMahon,

J.,

2013 WL 1385015.

I am a woman physician

of

Indian Nation Origin. I submitted the motion for in forma

pauperis where I signed an affidavit with the risk

of

penalty

of

perjury, I am disbelieved by the

court with reference to marital status as indicated in the motion for in forma pauperis. (Exhibit 1

I am not married. Dr. Rajit Malliah informed me that he was willing to write a set

of

declarations to dispel any current false beliefs on our marital status, and on matters that are true

to his personal knowledge with regard to me. (Exhibit 2 I am unemployed. I also have

significant student loans

1

in the hundreds

of

thousands

of

dollars that are increasing daily with

interest. I recently applied to what seemed to

be

an excellent opportunity for me but they now

require a letter from program director from the former employer, Mount Sinai Medical Center

Prior motion for In forma pauperis is resubmitted to the Court

of

Appeals.



3/26

that I am litigating against

2

, and again, here is the problem

o

my being barred from appropriate

employment opportunities because o my civil rights activities and because o wrongful

termination from a former employer. Therefore, whenever I apply to a job, the Caucasian

employer changes the criteria for hiring after I apply, deviating from their standard practices to

exclude me, as recently as in the past three months. I have deposition testimony from Dr. Billie

Fyfe who testified to my superior qualification as an employee candidate but I was excluded

because

o

the Defendants' interferences with prospective business relations, an ongoing tort, by

their refusal to provide my employment records. Varughese v. Mount Sinai Medical Center

12cv8812, electronic document ID 10459039, 10459937, 10465646, submitted 115-1/6 2015.

The Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted erroneously. In

determining whether or not summary judgment is appropriate, we must resolve all ambiguities

and draw all reasonable inferences against the moving

party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.

v.

Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), quoting Tolbert

v.

Smith, 14-1012, 2nd Circuit

June 24, 2015./ Summary judgment must be denied where dispute o genuine material fact can

lead a reasonable jury to return the verdict in favor

o

the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106

S.

Ct. 2505 (1986). Judges are not to weigh the evidence or

evaluate the credibility

o

the parties or to make credibility assertions at the summary judgment

Injunction to obtain the record

o

work where I completed the first 3 years

o

my residency training

in

Anatomic and Clinical Pathology from Mount Sinai Medical Center from a competent professional doctor

in the field, a party other than the involved and named Defendants, such as the current program director,

Adolfo Firpo-Betancourt MD. He was involved in several federal litigation prior to his commencing his

employment at Mount Sinai Medical Center. I was informed that I was on their final warning on July

14

or 15, 2011, which is a date that falls within my 4th and final year

o

my residency, and the program

director at this time was Patrick Lento MD. The Defendants ignored my legal counsels for several

months with regard to my legally protected complaints, as much as they ignored my own legally protected

complaints, until this date, when they alleged that I had been unprofessional also known as pretext for

discriminatory conduct, and a pattern with the Defendants in retaliating against me.



4/26

stage, that's the jury's duty. id. at 248, 255. Donnelly v. Greenburgh Cent. School Dist. No. 7,

691

F.3d 134, 146 (2d Cir.2012). The standard to defend against the summary judgment is not

onerous, and only requires that there are disputes o facts to support the causes o actions on

which the lawsuit was brought are contained in the depositions, evidence, and declarations

3

The

U.S. Supreme Courts' prior decisions such as in Adickes v. S.

H.

Kress Co., 398

U.

S. 144

(1970) may not have uniformly recited the same language in describing genuine factual issues

under Rule 56, but it is clear enough from our recent cases that at the summary judgment stage

the judge's function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth o the matter but

to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial quoting 477 U.S. at 249.

The Defendants did not meet their burden o production. In discrimination cases, the

employers burden

o

production revolves around them articulating non-discriminatory reasons

for termination

o

the employee by the Defendants having acted in a nondiscriminatory manner,

such as treating comparators as equals. Recently U.S. Supreme Court found that there is a

genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some

employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from Young's. In other words,

Young created a genuine dispute o

material fact as to the fourth prong

o

the McDonnell

Douglas analysis. Young

v.

United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338, 575 U.S., 2015 U.S.

L.E.X.I.S. 2121 (2015) at 1355. A comparator need not be an identical twin outside my

protected class but employees whose situation or duties cannot be reasonably distinguished from

mme.

3

Hollander, Eugene

K.

EMPLOYMENT EVIDENCE.

(2013).



5/26

Unlawful discrimination is particularly intolerable and discovery is broad to allow the

Plaintiff to find the evidence relating to her termination or adverse employment claim, Before

discovery has unearthed relevant facts and evidence, it may be difficult to define the precise

formulation

of

the required prima facie case in a particular case. Given that the prima facie case

operates as a flexible evidentiary standard, it should not be transposed into a rigid pleading

standard for discrimination cases. quoting Swierkiewicz v. Sorema NA, 534 U.S. 506, 122

S.

Ct. 992, 152 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2002) at 512. The discovery is supposed to be extensive, to answer

questions

of

discriminatory practice by employer such as with Evidence relating to company-

wide practices may reveal patterns

of

discrimination against a group

of

employees, increasing the

likelihood that an employer's offered explanation for an employment decision regarding a

particular individual masks a discriminatory motive. quoting Hollander v. American Cyanamid

Co., 895 F.2d 80, 84 85 (2nd Cir.1990).

In Varughese v. Mt Sinai Medical Center et al.

12cv8812, the discovery was voluminous but not broad as it should have been, because it was

severely limited with Magistrate Francis's rulings on discovery to limit key elements such as

various comparator performance records

4

, in addition, to lack

of

the court's action with issues

with delays in production and the ongoing redactions and removal

of

various pieces

of

key

evidence, and spoliation, relating to evidence on retaliation and hostile work environment, as

well as problems with my own legal counsel with regards to his unethical conduct during the

proceedings

of

my case. (Varughese v Mount Sinai Medical Center et al 12cv8812, electronic

record

of

docket prior to Motion for Summary Judgment).

4

I have considered this particularly troubling because Magistrate Francis was informed by Rory McEvoy

that I had no performance issues at the meet and confer on July 11

2012.



6/26

McDonnell Douglas ruling set the standard for indirect legal testing for discrimination in

cases of pretext, meaning appearance of neutral reasons, as masking the unlawful discrimination

against the Plaintiff. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S Ct. 1817, 36 L Ed.

2d 668 (1973). Evaluation

of

pretext requires some sophistication, not the approach that I

observed in my case, to ignore the disputes of factual issues and equivocate these factual

elements to attack the character and reputation of the Plaintiff at the summary judgment stage or

any other stage in litigation. Varughese v Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., No. 12-CV-8812, 2015 WL

1499618, at *44 (S.D.N.Y. Mar 27, 2015).

Invariably, pretext consists

of

circumstantial evidence such as timelines, the

inconsistencies and shifting reasons for termination or the Plaintiff becoming a moving target

as reasons for termination and adverse employment actions are refuted with evidence by

Plaintiff, the implausibility

of

Defendants' explanations weighed against the Plaintiff's evidence,

are various methods that allow for dealing with the impermissible problem of bigotry,

discrimination, and retaliation in American workplaces

5

as alleged in lawsuits. Reeves v

Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U

S 133

(2000), Postal Service Bd. of Governors v

Aikens, 460 U S 711, 714, n 3 (1983). In 2003, the US Supreme Court ruled on a mixed-

motive discrimination case, where it recognized that evidence that a defendant's explanation for

an employment practice is unworthy

of

credence is one form of circumstantial evidence that is

probative of intentional discrimination. 530 U.S. at 147 (emphasis added). The reason for

treating circumstantial and direct evidence alike is both clear and deep rooted: Circumstantial

5 Proof

of

Pretext: A Review

of

case authority and strategy from a plaintiff's perspective y John F

Beasley, 2011 at htt.p://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/labor law/meetings/2011/

ac2011103 3 .authcheckdam.pdf



7/26

evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than

direct evidence. Rogers v Missouri Pacific R Co., 352 U

S

500, 508, n 17 (1957) quoting

from Desert Palace, Inc.

v

Costa, 539 U.S. 90,

123 S

Ct. 2148, 156

L

Ed. 2d

84

(2003) with

internal citations and quotations included.

In my case, I defended the motion for summary judgment with an extensive review

o

the

documents with exhaustive listing and referencing

o

documents, depositions, and declarations to

meet the standard required to rebut the paltry evidence proffered by Defendants to support their

obviously farcical, unbelievable, defense that their pre-textual conduct was not motivated by

racism, bigotry, sexism, retaliation, and unlawful ll motives and I preserved the objections to

affidavits and submissions by Defendants for appeals.

As

I reviewed the evidence, the

overwhelming evidence o fraud against me prompted me to also write to the court to meet with

me, with the Defendant's lawyers

6

, with specific issues in mind with regard to my case, an

attorney would have been given this audience, but as a pro

se

Plaintiff, I was not. In the sum o

text and decisions o the summary judgment, I was not provided with any injunctive and

declaratory relief? but further denigrated.

Judge McMahon failed to recognize me as a reasonable person with my filing the Motion

in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The evidence that I submitted should

admissible on a number o grounds for a trial, these should give rise to the inference o

discrimination, and the evidence o retaliation, and hostile workplace as it has sufficiently

responded to any o the Defendants motion for summary judgment. The Defendant Institution

6

In the course

o

this litigation, I requested several meetings with the court, but not ex parte meetings, to

discuss

my

concerns with regard to the egregious conduct

o

my former employer against me but that was

not granted. see footnote 3.

see footnote 2



8/26

was a workplace where I was threatened with physical violence, verbally abused, subjected to

nonstandard working conditions, subjected to derogatory comments by leadership personnel

since 2009, the Defendants various false allegations against me amounting to adverse

employment action immediately started following the incidents in December 2010, despite the

admissions o guilt by the perpetrator, Samuel McCash about his conduct (whether Filipino or

Caucasian or both, he is squarely outside o

my protected class), speaking to the Caucasian

Adrienne Jordan was apparently considered a problem even though no one asked me not to speak

to her but she was informed that she was not to speak to me, Jordan was promoted, despite being

less qualified than me to a materially advantageous position, my work was sabotaged, my

reviews were based on the conduct o others not in my protected class, who were harassing me,

rather than the fact that I did all my work without error, culminating to at least 15,000 patient

cases over the years that I was employed by the Defendant Institution, the fact that my legal

counsels were ignored by the Defendants, and the fact that other coworkers who were not in my

protected class and who were engaged in far more egregious and detrimental conduct were not

reprimanded at all. Varughese

v

Mount Sinai Medical Center 12cv8812, Electronic document ID

10459039, 10459937, 10465646 submitted 1/05-1/06/2015.

f

all

o

these facts still presents

itself as a lack

o

evidence

to

support an inference

o

discrimination at the summary judgment

stage, then the courts are going beyond the acceptable standards

o

summary judgment into

idiocy, into pathological structural racism, sexism, and the upholding

o

institutional

discriminatory structures to allow unlawful discrimination and retaliation against professional

minorities, as seen in Varughese

v

Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., No. 12-CV-8812, 2015

WL

1499618,

at *44 (S.D.N.Y.

Mar

27, 2015).

-



9/26

In addition, there were also unjustified allegations made to appear as though I only made

conclusory statements in the Rule 56 statement

o

facts, which

i

one were to review the Rule 56

statements o facts and/or submitted declarations, it is obvious that this allegation is untrue and

unjustified. Defendants alleging there are conclusory statements made by Plaintiff does not

remove the burden o production or demerit a prima facie case o discrimination as it is not

enough to move for summary judgment without supporting the motion in any way or with a

conclusory assertion that the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his case. Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L Ed. 2d 265 (1986). at 328.

John

Beasley wrote in

his article for American Bar Association about evidence o pretext used as proof o

discrimination, .. . the Supreme Court has articulated some broad categories: instances in which

persons outside the protected class were treated better; the treatment the plaintiff received while

employed; other acts o discrimination and responses to other legitimate civil rights activities ...

and best or better practices that may have avoided discrimination .. .implausible or fantastic

justifications (see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338-39 (2003)(quoting Purkett v. Elem,

514 U.S. 765 (1995))(in the context o jury selection); and qualifications evidence as an

additional level o comparator scrutiny (Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454, 457 (2006)).

8

In addition, I submitted direct evidence

o

discrimination through documentary evidence such as

incidents o name calling, relevant derogatory commentary, and relevant directed specific acts

accompanied by the smoking gun statement such as it's because she is a woman o Indian

Origin who is making things

ugly making legally protected complaints, and direct reference to

my gender as female as an instructional on the expectations o me

by

named Defendants and

8

see footnote 6 at

6

7



10/26

other high level proxies for the Defendant Institution. Varughese

v.

Mount Sinai Medical Center

12cv8812, Electronic document ID 10459039, 10459937, 10465646, submitted

1/5

- 1/6/2015.

With regards to the termination letter from Defendants on September 21, 2011, I could

not voice my concerns about these specific issues because I was not informed about many o the

listed issues during my employment as an issue for termination, or

i

I expressed my concern,

then I was unprofessional is an infringement on my employment rights. Hishon v. King

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 75 (1984). It was well known that I contested my grievances directly

with the Defendants with regard to unlawful treatment and unlawful discrimination and on any

matter that concerned my employment, so the Defendants also intentionally segregated me from

important meetings, and threatened me directly during meetings where I made protected

complaints. The Defendant Institution is a federally funded workplace that is rife with

discrimination and EEO violations that the courts have allowed to proliferate to the detriment o

minorities and women. The organization has been a dangerous workplace for me, other

minorities, minority women, and other protected classes

o

people, all reasonable United States

citizens, as we

do

our jobs in a workplace that is very polarized by race and gender, the

corporation is representative o Caucasian interests from Boards o Trustees to administrative

personnel with minimal minority representation, i any and so where even in cases o egregious

unlawful conduct, the specific Caucasians and the Caucasian organization cannot be held

accountable to the law or intent

o

the law in largely Caucasian courts, to afford people like me

the legal protections from harm and inequitable attacks on our prosperity and freedoms. It's as

i

my success is seen as a personal failure for the larger Caucasian population, not just the

Defendants who likely fear my success in my profession after all the obviously false allegations



11/26

they made to pretextually terminate my employment , destroy my reputation, and end my career

through unlawful discrimination against me.

The concepts

o

equality are logical, sound, and rational, yet it's impossible to engage in

a reasonable manner on issues o importance to minorities, as seen with the events during the

course o my employment with Defendants, and during this litigation. The Defendants had

stated that the reasons for the termination

o

my employment consisted

o

the six specific reasons

that they provided in the termination letter, I successfully rebutted the Defendants proffered non-

discriminatory reasons for termination

o

my employment, meeting the standard required

to

succeed at the summary judgment stage. The court is incomprehensibly arguing that it can cast

aspersions on my character and employment performance by comparing myself to myself, rather

than comparing

my

performance to others not in my protected class. Judge McMahon is arguing,

and not with subtlety, that I need be a model minority

9

to enjoy legal protections, not that I

need to be like others not in my protected class

10

I cannot meet standards

o

the unrealistic

discriminatory ideologies o perfection expected o Asian minorities by courts and whites,

as

the

defense against discrimination in hostile courts in prima facie cases litigated under Title VII o

Civil Rights Act o 1964 or the New York State Human Rights Law or NYC Human Rights Law

at any stage

o

the litigation11 l2.

9

Cheryan, Sapna, and Galen

V

Bodenhausen. When positive stereotypes threaten intellectual

performance: The psychological hazards o model minority status. Psychological Science 11.5 (2000):

399-402.

10

Suzuki, Bob H. Revisiting the model minority stereotype: Implications for student affairs practice and

higher education. New directions

for

student services 2002.97 (2002): 21-32.

11

Bijlani, Jagdish J. Neither here nor there: Creating a legally and politically distinct South Asian racial

identity. Berkeley a Raza L

16

(2005): 53 at 58, 60-63.

12

Dhingra, Pawan H. Being American Between Black and White: Second-Generation Asian American

Professionals' Racial Identities. Journal of sian merican Studies 6.2 (2003): 117-147 at 132-133.



12/26

The evidence that I presented to defend my case, when weighed against the moving party,

the Defendants, it is impossible to have awarded the summary judgment to the defendants and I

preserved many objections for appeals as a litigant. As the non-moving party, I met this

challenge by submitting evidence in the form

of

genuine factual issues that can be resolved only

by a finder

of

fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor

of

either party 477 U.S. at

251. Thus, in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the judge must view the evidence

presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden. This conclusion is mandated

by the nature

of

this determination. The question here is whether a

jury

could reasonably find

either that the plaintiff proved his case by the quality and quantity

of

evidence required by the

governing law or that he did not . quoting Liberty Lobby., Inc., 477 U.S. at 254. Judge

McMahon's decision also contained de novo allegations that are farcical and untrue, and then,

she flipped out that she does not want me to appeal, because

of

these ongoing fraudulent

actions against me, that the Circuit Court will find shocking and impermissible. To be sure,

Judge McMahon's analysis

of

the evidence, disputes

of

fact, and application to the causes

of

action were wrong in Varughese v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., No. 12-CV-8812, 2015 WL 1499618,

at *44 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2015), as was her labeling me lazy , which the records clearly argues

against, as well.

I think that the federal courts act to normalize segregated systems

13

where I a woman

physician oflndian National Origin, a professional with extensive education who is licensed with

New

York

State Department

of

Health, with years

of

training in Anatomic and Clinical

13

Wei, Virginia

W.

Asian Women and Employment Discrimination: Using Intersectionality Theory to

Address Title VII Claims Based on Combined Factors of Race, Gender and National Origin.

CL

Rev 37

(1995):

771at780 812



13/26

Pathology, can be callously subjected to the ire o coworkers who routinely consume alcohol at

work contrary to hospital rules with leftover alcohol at work for them on standby, the creation

o

false allegations against me by my supervisors that when contested was met with allegations that

I am unprofessional , where I am disciplined for the conduct o others and even with updated

knowledge

o

their involvement and their admissions o guilt, the Defendants continued to

fabricate various allegations against me, I am excluded from certain material advantages with

increased pay and responsibilities, rather I am marginalized through whatever means they can

employ, my accounting o the events that occurred to me are unjustifiably criticized and my

statements and I am again described as unprofessional

14

because I do not take responsibility

for actions o the guilty parties, and I am subjected

to

further final warnings that are

disciplinary actions, and in closed meetings, I felt a degree

o threat against my person with the

demeanor, threatening language and tone o the individual Defendants and it's specific proxies

that had been an ongoing theme o terror for me

as

a petite woman who is 5ft1 in and 110-116lbs,

and my professional medical license is put into jeopardy and though, I am in good standing, I am

excluded from every job, and my professional career beyond residency are going to be filled with

long discussions on the events

o

the wrongful termination

o

my contracted employment, these

are illegal activities given the protections afforded in Title VII o the Civil Rights Act o 1964 per

Hishon

v

King Spalding. 467 U.S. 69 (1984).

14

Professionalism and the medical professional's code o conduct is a specific criteria, the definition

o

which is provided in the Motion in Opposition to the motion for summary judgment.



14/26

As discussed above and in my previously filed motion for pro bono counsel, I have a

meritorious and important case that I can argue effectively as a Pro Se litigant

5

or with the

assistance

of

a pro bono counsel who is knowledgable, intelligent, ethical/professional,

experienced, capable, and preferably, a labor and civil rights attorney. In federal courts with

employment civil rights cases, there is a significant issue

of

inadequate legal representation

available to professional minorities and Asian American Plaintiffs

6

, despite our cases being

meritorious on both substantive questions of law and the relief sought from litigation on

egregious violations

of

our civil rights protections by private parties. I do not want the current

trend

of

underrepresentation by legal counsels

of

professional minorities such as myself, through

no fault

of

mine, to disadvantage me from a case management and mediation program known as

Civil Appeals Management Plan (CAMP) in the Second Circuit that is currently unavailable to

Pro Se litigants

7

. Alternatively, if the court cannot afford

to

waive the fees for me and/or it does

not assign me with a pro bono counsel, I will borrow the money to pay the fee and proceed with

the appeals from that point onwards.

5

Rosenbloom, Jonathan D. Exploring Methods to Improve Management and Fairness in Pro Se Cases:

A Study of the Pro Se Docket in the Southern District of ew York.

Fordham urban law journal

30.305

(2002). There is no extensive research to support the prevailing notion of negative effect of pro se

litigants in the courts and there is evidence that represented case are more time consuming and had the

most docket entries at 312-314, 358-359

6

Myrick, Amy, Robert L Nelson, and Laura Beth Nielson. Race and representation: racial disparities in

legal representation for employment civil rights plaintiffs. NYU

Legis. Pub. Pol y

5 (2012): 705 at

712-715

7

Laural

L

Hooper, Dean Miletich, and Angelia Levy. Case management procedures in the Federal

Courts ofAppeals. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, 2011 at 37-41.



15/26

Exhibit 1



16/26

pplication to ppeal In Forma Pauperis

v.

Afwv{

} ; ~

~ ~

Appeal No.

_1_5-_13_2_8

uvkf

i

v

ffidavit in Support o Motion

I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that,

because of my poverty, I cannot prepay the docket

fees

of

my appeal or post a bond for them.

I

believe

I

am

entitled to redress. I swear or affirm under

penalty

of

perjury under United States laws that my

answers

on

this form are true and correct. (28

u.s.c. 1746; 18 u.s.c.

l / t .

Signed L

My issues on

appeal

are: (required):

District Court or Agency No.

__ 1-=2=--8=8=-1.:..=2=-----

Instructions

Complete all questions in this application and then

sign it. Do not leave any blanks: if the answer to a

question is O, none, or not applicable (N/A),

write that response.

f

you need more space to answer

a question

or

to explain your answer, attach a separate

sheet of paper identified with your name, your case's

docket number, and the question number.

Date: {

~ ~ 1 . . o _ t _ S _

1.

For both

you

nd

your

spouse estimate the average amount

of

money received from each

of

he following sources during thep st 12 months. Adjust any amount that was received

weekly biweekly quarterly semiannually or

annually to show the monthly rate. Use

gross amounts that

is

amounts before any deductions for taxes or otherwise.

Income source verage monthly mount expected next

amount during the past

month

12

months

.L...

You

You

Soofue

z

Employment

$

~

$

{ f.-..o._

$

Self-employment

$

r ~

$ $

tJ--

$

Income from real property

such

as

$

r J ' ~

$

$

rental income)

- I -

121ou2013 sec



17/26

Interest and dividends

t ~

J

Gifts

'Ja>O

Alimony

f.J',,....,._

~ M L

Child support

Npl\ >...

~

Retirement (such as social security,

r J ~

rJ6\\Q

pensions, annuities, insurance)

Disability (such as social security,

J ~

insurance payments)

Unemployment payments

t J ~ Il \U

Public-assistance (such as welfare)

Nrt

Other (specify):

tJ,vz_

Total monthly income:

9' _ {c JOO

0

Sil

0

2 List your employment historyfor the p st two years, most recent employer first. (Gross

monthly p y is before taxes or other deductions.)

Employer

Address

Dates of Gross

employment monthly pay

N""L

3.

Listyour spouse s employment historyfor the

p st

two years, most recent employer first.

(Gross monthly

p y

s before taxes or other deductions.)

Employer

Address Dates of Gross

employment monthly pay

~



18/26

4

How much cash do you and

your

spouse

have?

J O ~

Below state any money you

or

your spouse have in bank accounts or in any other

financial institution.

Financial Institution

Type of Account

Amount you have Amount your

spouse has

qyou

are a prisoner seeking to appeal a

judgment

in a civil action or proceeding you must

attach a statement certified by the appropriate institutional officer showing ll receipts

expenditures and balances during the last six months in your institutional accounts. f

you

have multiple accounts perhaps because

you

have been in multiple institutions attach

one

certified statement

of

each account.

5. Lis t the assets

and

their values which

you

own or your spouse owns. Do not list clothing

and ordinary household urnishings.

Home

~ I A

Other real estate

i_{lt

Motor vehicle

1

JMPr

(Value)

(Value)

(Value)

Make and year:

Model:

Registration :

Motor vehicle 2

Other assets Other assets

(Value)

(Value) (Value)

Make and year:

Model:

Registration :

- 3 -



19/26

6 State every person business or organization owing

you

or your spouse money nd the

amount owed

Person owing you or your spouse

Amount owed to you Amount owed to your

money spouse

7

State the persons who rely on

you or your

spouse for support.

Name [or,

i

a minor

(i.e.,

underage), initials only] Relationship Age

8.

Estimate the average monthly expenses of o nd

your

family. Show separately the

amounts p id by your spouse. Adjust any payments that are made weekly biweekly

quarterly semiannually

or

annually to show the monthly rate.

You

Y o ~ s e

Rent or home-mortgage payment (including lot rented for

mobile home)

Y e s R N o

NAA

Are real estate taxes included?

Is property insurance included?

Yes No

Utilities (electricity, heating fuel, water, sewer, and telephone)

i

Home maintenance (repairs and upkeep)

> J 4 \11\L.

Food bO

Clothing

~

Laundry and dry-cleaning

~ . e .

Medical and dental expenses

J ~

- 4 -



20/26

Transportation (not including motor vehicle payments)

Recreation, entertainment, newspapers, magazines, etc.

l

S 0

Insurance (not deducted from wages or included in mortgage payments)

Homeowner's or renter's:

72.

Life:

_ _

Health:

Motor vehicle:

0

--------------

Other:

D

Taxes (not deducted from wages

or

included in mortgage

D

payments) (specify):

Installment payments

Motor Vehicle:

__Q_

Credit card (name):

0

Department store (name):

0

Other:

0

Alimony, maintenance, and support paid to others

0

Regular expenses for operation o business, profession, or

0

farm (attach detailed statement)

Other (specify):

D

Total monthly expenses:

s)l

4U

so

9.

Do you expect any major changes to your monthly income or expenses or in your assets

or liabilities during the next 12 months?

0ves N o f yes, describe on an attached sheet.

S ~ ~

d ~

10.

Have you spent- or willyoul' ' fpenl'nJ-any money for expenses or attorney fees n

connection with this lawsuit?

Yes No

f es how much? 40

ooo

-

~ Y I , ~

- 5 -



21/26

11 Provide any other information that will help explain whyyou cannot p y the docket fees

for your appeal

12 Identify the city

nd

state

of

your legal residence

State tJ j

Your daytime phone number:

tofr

'Z- >> 7> 6

Yourage:

34 Y o u r y e a r s o f s c h o o l i n g ~ ..{);>

Last four digits o your social security number: o\ f(o



22/26

9. I have student loans that have been compounding interest for extensive periods of

time on which I cannot

afford to make

a payment I

have

tried

to

obtain various

employment

in

my profession

and

I cannot because

of

the illegal actions of the

Defendants to destroy

my

career

and

employability in

my

profession through falsified

allegations discrimination retaliation and hostility towards

me

for being a

woman

of

Indian

descent

and

engaging

in

legally protected

activity

~



23/26

Exhibit



24/26

I declare the following statements to be true under penalty

of

perjury.

1

I am not married.

2. I am not married to Dr. Leena Varughese.

3. I accompanied Dr. Varughese to some ofher depositions and court appearances and I have

briefly met Judge McMahon and Judge Francis during the court appearances.

4. While I accompanied Dr. Varughese to her case related events, I never misrepresented

myself as her husband, and vice versa, Dr. Varughese never referred

me

to as her husband.

5.

t

the deposition ofDr. Adrienne Jordan, her mother and she requested that I be removed to

Judge Francis, who denied that request on grounds that I could remain as a witness as Dr.

Varughese instructed.

6 I provided material support as other family and friends have given to fund Dr. Varughese s

legal expenses in the past.

7. Dr. Varughese is not gainfully employed

to

my knowledge but she actively sought

employment since the termination

ofher

employment from Mount Sinai Medical Center on

September 21, 2011.

8

To my personal knowledge, Dr. Varughese is competent and capable

of

completing her

residency and practicing as a competent physician, as I have worked with Dr. Varughese

directly, and I have recommended her to utilize any externship opportunities, since the

termination

of

her employment, to gain experience

in

Pathology.

9. My impression is that Dr. Varughese is not being given fair employment opportunities since

her filing

of

EEOC complaints. I and other doctors have repeatedly recommended Dr.

Varughese for residency positions

in

New Jersey for which she is eminently qualified for as

a professional ethical physician of

the highest caliber.

10. To my personal knowledge, Dr. Varughese has a large student loan debt and minimal assets

other than her potential wealth consistent with her career and chosen profession.

11. I

am

concerned Dr. Varughese is perceived as a threat and she has been labeled as such since

her employment with Mount Sinai Medical Center and following the termination

of

her

employment, because of

her civil rights activities and activism for her

own

civil rights and

legal protections afforded by U.S., State, and local Law, statutes and policies.

12. In my opinion, Dr. Varughese s likely potential success as a competent physician is a threat

to the credibility

of

the defendants, with further escalation against her, given my review

of

the farcical allegations in memorandum and order

on

summary judgment, containing glaring

errors

of

fact and reason.

1



25/26

13. I recommend immediate injunctive rel ief be granted to Dr. Varughese so she can advance in

her chosen profession, obtain her Board certifications, and begin practicing. The State

ofNY

has investigated Dr. Varughese and they found no evidence

of

wrongdoing on her part, after

multiple investigations. Dr. Varughese has a valid

NY

State medical license and NY State

has apologized to her and they have encouraged her to fmd gainful employment immediately

to mitigate her losses.

14. n my opinion, it is in the interest

of

the federal government and public that Dr. Varughese

completes the final year ofher residency program in Anatomic and Clinical Pathology with

an organization other than her former employer, because she was obviously wrongfully

terminated after she completed the labor intensive Anatomic Pathology work for Mount

Sinai Medical Center in NewYork, NY.

Rajit B.

Malliah MD

Commonwealth

of

New Jersey

County ofMiddlesex

On this, the

th

day of September, 2015, before me a notary public, the undersigned officer,

personally appeared RA-J1r

}i J6:. U

,known to me or satisfactorily proven) to be the person

whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same

for the purposes therein contained. In witness hereof, I hereunto set my hand and official

seal. O : r ~ tJIJ / a:z-=-

1 ~ ( / / / ~ o t a r y Public ~

Sworn

to and subscribed

before

me this

_ Q_day of / ( ( ] 2 0 / ~

2



26/26

UNITE

ST TES COURT OF PPE LS FORTHE SECOND CIRCUIT

CAPTION:

_ V _ a _ r u _ g ~ h _ e _ s _ e _ _L

Mount Sinai Medical

Center

et

al

CERTIFIC TE OF SERVICE

Docket

Number:

15-1328

I, L _ e _ e _ n _ a _ V _ a _ r _ u ~ g _ h _ e _ s e _ _ M _ . D _ .

hereby

certify

under

penalty of perjury

that on

(name)

_ S _ e ~ p _ t e _ m _ b _ e _ r _2_ _15 I served a copy of Motion for In forma

Pauperis

Exhibits

1

2

(date)

by (select all applicable)*

(list all documents)

D United States Mail

D Federal Express

D

Overnight

Mail

D

Facsimile

ZJ

E-mail

D Hand delivery

on the following parties (complete all information

and add

additional pages as necessary):

Rory

McEvoy 405

Lexington

Avenue

NY NY

Name

Address

City

State

Name

Address City State

Name

Address

City State

Name

Address

City State

September

6 2015

sl Leena Varughese

Today s

Date

Signature

10174

Zip Code

Zip Code

Zip Code

Zip Code

If

different methods

of

service have been used on different parties, please indicate on a separate

page, the type of service used for each respective party.

Certificate of Service Form


filed in forma pauperis court stamped 962015 document

Documents