Saraswat v. Business Integra Inc.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER  Plaintiff Ajay Saraswat (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint on August 10, 2015 (Dkt. 1) and an amended complaint on November 16, 2015 (Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”), Dkt. 11), alleging various claims against Defendants Business Integra, Inc. and Jagan Parathasarthy (collectively, “Defendants”).¹ Before the Court are Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 74), Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Dkt. 75), and two motions in limine (Dkts. 57, 76). For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted, Defendants’ motion for sanctions is denied, and the motions in limine are denied as moot. BACKGROUNDPlaintiff’s family moved from New Delhi, India to Queens, New York in 2000. (Defendants’ 56.1 Statement (“Defs.’ 56.1″),² Dkt. 74-8,12; Plaintiff’s Deposition (“Pl.’s Dep.”), Dkt. 77-1, at ECF³ 2132.) After moving to the United States, Plaintiff obtained an F-1 student visa⁴ and attended Vaughn College of Aeronautics, where he graduated with a B.S. in aviation maintenance and an associate’s degree in aeronautical engineering technology. (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,14; Pl.’s Dep., Dkt. 77-1, at ECF 2139.) Plaintiff also received a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from the City University of New York (“CUNY”) in September 2005. (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt 74-8,15; Pl.’s Dep., Dkt. 77-1, at ECF 2140.) Plaintiff then acquired an Optional Practical Training (“OPT”) visa⁵ from the City College of New York⁶ and attempted to secure employment. (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,16.) Plaintiff worked for one month at AAR Allen Studio Radio Service, but “didn’t like it” and “just left the job because it wasn’t something [he] wanted to pursue.” (Id.17; see also Pl.’s Dep., Dkt. 77-1, at ECF 2140 41.) Thereafter, Plaintiff applied to some defense firms, but was unable to obtain a job because he was not a U.S. citizen. (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,18; Pl.’s Dep., Dkt. 77-1, at ECF 2141.) Plaintiff then decided to pursue a graduate degree at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, now known as the Tandon School of Engineering at New York University. (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,19; Pl.’s Dep., Dkt. 77-1, at ECF 2141.)In March 2007, Plaintiff attended a job fair at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, where he met Defendant Parathasarthy, who was at the job fair representing Defendant Business Integra, Inc. (“Business Integra” or “BI”). (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,21; Pl.’s Dep., Dkt. 77-1, at ECF 2153 54.) Shortly after the job fair, on or about March 26, 2007, Defendant Parathasarthy and Plaintiff spoke on the phone, after which Defendant Parathasarthy sent Plaintiff an email stating: “I was under the impression that you wanted to complete the MS in Financial engineering. Your phone call today has clarified that you wanted us to sponsor your H[-]1B⁷ immediately.” (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,22; Plaintiff’s Declaration in Opposition to Summary Judgment & Exhibits in Support (“Pl.’s Exs.”), Dkt. 77-5, at ECF 2403 04.) That same day, BI emailed Plaintiff an offer letter. (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,22.) Additionally, Defendant Parathasarthy sent Plaintiff an email stating: “We also need OPT/CPT [Curricular Practical Training] from your University where you did Mechanical Engineering or from Poly where you are doing Financial engineering allowing you to work[,] as F1 visa holders can work only under these conditions. Otherwise you can start working only after H[-]1B is granted.” (Defendants’ Exhibit (“Defs.’ Ex.”) G, Dkt 74-5, at ECF 1492.) The record is unclear as to whether Plaintiff ever provided his OPT and/or CPT materials to BI.⁸ On March 26, 2007, Plaintiff signed the offer letter (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,23), which the Court will refer to as the “OPT Contract.”The OPT Contract explained that BI was offering Plaintiff a position as a mechanical engineer to begin on April 16, 2007. (Defs.’ Ex. H, Dkt. 74-5, at ECF 1494.) It provided that: “For purposes of this agreement you will be deemed to have ‘commenced your employment’ with [BI] as of the date o[n] which you commence a project and provide billable services on behalf of [BI].” (Id. at ECF 1494; Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,24; Pl.’s Exs., Dkt. 77-5, at ECF 2426.) The OPT Contract further provided: “You understand that your employment requires you to perform services at customer sites, and you may be required to travel and/or relocate to perform such services.” (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,25; Pl.’s Exs., Dkt. 77-5, at ECF 2426.) The OPT Contract called for a 70/30 split for compensation between Plaintiff and BI, respectively, and specifically provided: “You will be compensated 70 percent of bill rate on W2 currently paid on bi-weekly basis.” (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,26; Pl.’s Exs., Dkt. 77-5, at ECF 2426.) Additionally, the OPT Contract provided that the employment would be on an “at-will” basis. (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,27; Pl.’s Exs., Dkt. 77-5, at ECF 2426.) Although Plaintiff did not read the OPT Contract in full, he did read the part establishing the 70/30 split and was “pretty much comfortable that [he] was making good money.” (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,29; Pl.’s Dep., Dkt. 77-1, at ECF 2159.) The OPT Contract obligated Plaintiff to apply for an H-1B visa, with BI as the sponsoring employer, so that he could legally work in the United States for BI:H-1B approval: You understand and acknowledge that your employment by Business Integra may commence once your H[-]1B petition is filed. You further understand and acknowledge that if your H-1B petition is denied, then, under the law, your work authorization ceases and you are required to depart the United States. As such, your future employment by Business Integra is subject to the final approval of your H-1B petition and such employment with Business Integra must be terminated upon the denial of your petition.(Defs.’ Ex. G, Dkt. 74-5, at ECF 1495.) At the time Plaintiff signed the contract, he did not feel that he was being forced to assent to the contract’s terms. (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,31; Pl.’s Dep., Dkt. 77-1, at ECF 2184.) Plaintiff agreed to pay BI $2,000 as a security deposit in the event that he decided to apply for an H-1B with another company instead. (Deposition of Selva Jayaraman (“Jayaraman Dep.”), Dkt. 77-3, at ECF 2314.)⁹ Accordingly, Plaintiff gave BI a check for $2,000 around the time he signed the OPT Contract. (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,

33, 34; Pl.’s Dep., Dkt. 77-1, at ECF 2162.)Over the next several months, Defendant Parathasarthy sent engineering job openings to Plaintiff and suggested that Plaintiff apply to them so he could gain experience in advance of his H-1B permit approval in the fall. (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,37.) Plaintiff was under the impression that BI was looking for an OPT/CPT placement for him. (Id.38.)¹⁰ When presented with a mechanical engineering position in Illinois, Plaintiff declined. (Id.40.) Subsequently, BI presented Plaintiff with an engineering analyst position in Wisconsin. (Id.) Additionally, BI asked Plaintiff to find jobs that BI could pursue on Plaintiff’s behalf, and although Plaintiff did find jobs, he did not forward them to BI. (Id.41.) Although Plaintiff understood that BI was looking for jobs on his behalf (id.42), he could not remember whether he ever told Defendant Parathasarthy that he believed he could not work until his H-1B visa was granted (id.43).¹¹On September 12, 2007, Plaintiff’s H-1B application was approved. (Id.46.) The H-1B visa was sent to BI, as the sponsoring employer. (Defs.’ Ex. J., Dkt. 74-5, at ECF 1515.) On or about October 5, 2007, BI sent Plaintiff a new offer letter and contract (the “H-1B Contract”), which Plaintiff promptly signed. (Defs. 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,48.) The H-1B Contract provided that Plaintiff would serve as a mechanical engineer at BI’s division in Greenbelt, Maryland “with effect from October 1st, 2007″ (Pl.’s Exs., Dkt. 77-6, at ECF 2430), and would be compensated with an annual salary of $55,000 (Defs.’ 56.1, Dkt. 74-8,