Case Background
Palani Karupaiyan filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against several corporate and individual entities. The named Defendants included CVS Health Corporation, Aetna, ActiveHealth Management (Aetna-AHM), Kalyani Lakshmi Bellamkonda, Robert Denner, APN Consulting Inc., Vedant Pathak, Neela Pathak, and Purvi Jhala. The litigation reached its conclusion when United States District Judge Jeannette A. Vargas issued an order following a jury trial.
Cause
The case involved multiple distinct legal causes of action across different sets of Defendants. Mr. Karupaiyan raised claims of race discrimination, alleging that his race served as a motivating factor in his termination from Aetna-AHM. He brought these discrimination claims under several distinct legal frameworks, which included Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, Section 1981, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Within these claims, the Plaintiff asserted that Aetna-AHM and individual supervisor Lakshmi Kalyani Bellamkonda subjected him to a hostile work environment due to his race. He also alleged that Ms. Bellamkonda was individually liable and had aided and abetted the race discrimination under state and city human rights laws. Apart from the employment discrimination claims, the Plaintiff asserted separate common law battery claims against individuals Robert Denner and Purvi Jhala.
Injury
The Plaintiff claimed injuries stemming from the early termination of his professional relationship with Aetna-AHM. He alleged that the corporate entities and Ms. Bellamkonda subjected him to an abusive, racially hostile work environment during the period he worked at the company. Furthermore, he claimed separate physical or offensive contact injuries resulting from the alleged battery involving Mr. Denner and Ms. Jhala.
Damages Sought
Mr. Karupaiyan sought compensatory damages to redress the financial and emotional harm he suffered from the premature end of his professional relationship and the race discrimination. He sought specific compensation for the harm associated with the racially hostile work environment. Additionally, the Plaintiff sought compensatory damages directly from Mr. Denner and Ms. Jhala to account for the harm caused by the alleged battery.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Palani Karupaiyan
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Pro Se
Defendant(s): CVS Health Corporation, Aetna, ActiveHealth Management, Kalyani Lakshmi Bellamkonda, Robert Denner, APN Consulting Inc., Vedant Pathak, Neela Pathak, and Purvi Jhala
Counsel for Defendant(s): Marcy A. Gilroy | Jason A Zoldessy
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiff organized his legal grievances around two primary types of wrongdoing: employment discrimination based on race and physical battery.
Employment Status and Title VII Discrimination
The Plaintiff argued that he maintained a true employment relationship with Aetna-AHM rather than working as an independent contractor, which qualified him for protections under federal and state employment laws. He argued that Aetna-AHM intentionally terminated him because of his race, violating Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law.
Individual Supervisor Liability and Aiding and Abetting
The Plaintiff asserted that supervisor Lakshmi Kalyani Bellamkonda bore individual liability for the termination under the New York State Human Rights Law. He also claimed that she actively aided and abetted Aetna-AHM's discriminatory actions.
Civil Rights Violations Under Section 1981
The Plaintiff asserted that his race was the definitive, "but-for" cause behind the decision of Aetna-AHM to end its professional relationship with him. He argued that Ms. Bellamkonda shared individual liability for this termination under federal civil rights law.
New York City Human Rights Law Violations
The Plaintiff argued that Aetna-AHM and Ms. Bellamkonda treated him worse than other contemporary workers by ending his professional relationship at least in part because of his race. He further alleged that both the company and the supervisor treated him worse than others by forcing him to endure a hostile work environment because of his race. He concluded that Ms. Bellamkonda aided and abetted this city-level discrimination.
Battery Claims
Entirely separate from the workplace discrimination allegations, the Plaintiff claimed that Robert Denner and Purvi Jhala committed battery against him, which meant they intentionally subjected him to harmful or offensive physical contact.
Defense
The defense countered all of the Plaintiff's allegations throughout the litigation, pushing the case to a jury trial. Aetna-AHM and Ms. Bellamkonda denied that race factored into the decision to end the professional relationship. They maintained that they did not subject the Plaintiff to a hostile work environment or treat him worse than any other workers. Furthermore, individual Defendants Robert Denner and Purvi Jhala denied committing battery. The defense overall maintained that the Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof on every single count, ultimately convincing the jury that no liability existed under any of the presented legal theories.
Jury Verdict
The jury completed its deliberations and returned a verdict form on May 14, 2026. The foreperson signed the verdict sheet, affirming the unanimous findings of the panel.
The jury found entirely in favor of the Defendants on every single question of liability. Because the jury answered "No" to the threshold liability questions regarding discrimination, hostile work environment, and battery, they did not find the Defendants liable on any of the Plaintiff's claims. Following the explicit instructions on the verdict form, the panel stopped deliberating before answering any questions regarding compensatory damages or apportioning financial liability among Aetna-AHM, Ms. Bellamkonda, Mr. Denner, or Ms. Jhala.
On June 9, 2026, Judge Jeannette A. Vargas issued the final formal order in the case. In accordance with the jury's verdict docketed at ECF No. 197, Judge Vargas directed the Clerk of Court to enter final judgment in favor of the Defendants on all claims in the operative case and officially closed the file.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
