Summary
This memorandum and order addresses defendants’ motions to dismiss and Ivory Systems, Inc.’s motion to join Bristol Myers Squibb’s motion. The court held that Ivory was the plaintiff’s employer and that Bristol Myers Squibb was plausibly alleged to be a joint employer. The court dismissed all claims against Ivory except promissory estoppel, while allowing the plaintiff’s discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims against Bristol Myers Squibb to proceed and dismissing the remaining claims against it.
Court
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Decision date
March 31, 2026
Docket number
1:24-cv-12672-JEK
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether BMS plausibly qualified as Hakuzimana's joint employer for purposes of the discrimination, retaliation, and wage-and-hour claims.
- Whether Hakuzimana plausibly alleged race and national-origin discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 based on cancellation of a promotion interview and constructive discharge.
- Whether Hakuzimana plausibly alleged a hostile work environment under Title VII and § 1981.
- Whether Hakuzimana plausibly alleged retaliation under Title VII and § 1981 based on cancellation of his BMS interview after reporting discrimination.
- Whether Hakuzimana stated claims under the Massachusetts Wage Act, Massachusetts Earned Sick Time Law, Massachusetts Temporary Workers Right to Know Law, or the Fair Labor Standards Act.
- Whether Hakuzimana stated a breach-of-contract claim or a promissory-estoppel claim based on Ivory's alleged promise to pay him through October 11.
- Whether the alleged conduct plausibly constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress under Massachusetts law.
Holdings
- Hakuzimana plausibly alleged that BMS was his joint employer along with Ivory for purposes of the employment-related claims.
- Hakuzimana plausibly stated disparate-treatment discrimination claims against BMS, but not against Ivory.
- Hakuzimana plausibly stated hostile-work-environment claims against BMS under Title VII and § 1981, but not against Ivory.
- Hakuzimana plausibly stated retaliation claims against BMS, but not against Ivory.
- The wage-and-hour claims were dismissed against both defendants.
- Hakuzimana failed to state a breach-of-contract claim against Ivory.
- Hakuzimana plausibly stated a promissory-estoppel claim against Ivory.
- Hakuzimana plausibly stated an IIED claim against BMS, but not against Ivory.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…