
    Govindlal K. BHANUSALI, M.D., Govindlal K. Bhanusali, M.D., PC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ORANGE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, domestic nonprofit organization, Crystal Run Healthcare LLP, Board of Directors of the Orange Regional Medical Center, Hal D. Teitelbaum, M.D., individually and as Chief Executive Officer of Crystal Run Health Care, Scott Batulis, individually and as President and Chief Executive Officer of Orange Regional Medical Center, Gregory Spencer, M.D., individually and as Chairman of Staff and as Chairman of the Medical Executive Committee at Orange Regional Medical Center, Gerard J. Galarneau, M.D., individually and as Chief of Staff at Orange Regional Medical Center, James E. Oxley, D.O., individually and as Vice President Medical Affairs/Medical Director of Orange Regional Medical Center, Kevin Trapp, M.D., individually and as the Department Chair of Orthopedics at Orange Regional Medical Center, Christopher Inzerillo, M.D., individually and as the Vice Chair of the Orthopedics Department at ORMC, Lou Heimbach aka Lou Heimbach, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.
    
    No. 13-3426-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    July 16, 2014.
    Seth Marcus, Leffler Marcus & McCaf-frey LLC, New York, NY, for Appellants.
    Douglas P. Catalano, Neil G. Sparber, and Samantha E. Beltre, Fulbright & Ja-worski LLP, New York, NY, for Orange Regional Medical Center, Board of Directors of the Orange Regional Medical Center, Lou Heimbach, Scott Batulis, Gerard J. Galarneau, M.D., and James E. Oxley, D.O.
    Michelle E. Phillips and Michael L. Abi-tabilo, Jackson Lewis P.C., White Plains, NY, for Crystal Run Healthcare LLP, Hal D. Teitelbaum, M.D., Christopher Inzeril-lo, M.D., Gregory Spencer, M.D., and Kevin Trapp, M.D.
    
      Andrew J. Schlafly, Esq., Far Hills, NJ, for Amici Curiae Association of American Physicians and American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, GERARD E. LYNCH, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption of this case as set forth above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiffs-appellants Govindlal K. Bhanu-sali, an Asian Indian-American orthopedic surgeon, and Govindlal K. Bhanusali, M.D., P.C. (collectively, “Bhanusali”) allege that Orange Regional Medical Center, Crystal Run Health Care LLP, and various individual doctors affiliated with those entities (collectively, “defendants”) conspired in a “sham peer review” to deny Bhanusali promotion, advancement opportunities, medical privileges, and clinical contracts. On appeal Bhanusali argues that the District Court erred in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss his antitrust and employment discrimination claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of the prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.

Bhanusali first argues that he adequately pled an “antitrust injury” as required to establish antitrust standing. Assuming ar-guendo without deciding that Bhanusali has antitrust standing under § 1 of the Sherman Act, we agree with the District Court’s determination that his allegations of harm to the marketplace and the existence of defendants’ conspiracy to engage in an “unlawful group boycott” are conelu-sory and implausible.

However, the District Court did err in dismissing Bhanusali’s claims of discrimination at the motion to dismiss stage. Bhanusali alleged that he received peer reviews or was disciplined for surgeries that resulted in neither patient complaints nor negative patient outcomes. In comparison, he alleged that younger, white physicians at the same medical facility who engaged in conduct that caused significantly worse outcomes for patients, including death, avoided any peer review or discipline. On a motion to dismiss, drawing all reasonable inferences in Bhanusali’s favor, we conclude that these allegations suffice to plausibly support an inference of discrimination.

We have considered Bhanusali’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part.  