Madigan v. Webber Hosp. Ass’n (Summary)

AGE DISCRIMINATION

Madigan v. Webber Hosp. Ass’n, No. 2:11-cv-00094-JAW (D. Me. Sept. 28, 2012)

The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied a hospital and physician group’s motions for summary judgment on various claims brought by a radiologist who had previously provided services to the hospital.

The hospital had contracted with a physician group, to which the radiologist belonged, to provide radiology services.  However, pursuant to the terms of the contract, the hospital notified the physician group that it had decided to terminate the agreement and, instead, contracted with a new radiology group for such services.  The radiologist applied for a position with the new radiology group, but was not hired.  He then sued the hospital and the new radiology group for age discrimination, and also sued the hospital for tortious interference with his prospective contractual advantage with the new radiology group.

The radiologist alleged that the hospital’s chief operating officer had told the radiologist that he and his group were getting older prior to switching providers.  In addition, he alleged that, when he applied to the new radiology group, an employee of the new group told the radiologist that he was getting older and that the hospital wanted a fresh face.  Although the radiologist had stipulated for purposes of the motion, that the employee was not a decision-maker for the new radiology group, the district court found that these comments could reflect the views of the new group.  Thus, the district court denied the hospital and new group’s motions for summary judgment with respect to the age discrimination claims.

With respect to the tortious interference claim against the hospital, the radiologist alleged that the hospital’s chief operating officer had told the new radiology group’s chief executive officer that the radiologist was difficult to work with and uncooperative.  The district court found that a reasonable juror could conclude that the hospital did make these statements and that the medical group relied on such comments in deciding not to hire the radiologist.

In addition, the radiologist alleged that the hospital interfered with his prospective contract with the new radiology group, by conditioning awarding the contract to the new group upon the new group’s agreement to not hire the radiologist.  Although the contract was awarded to the new group before it made any relevant hiring decisions, the district court found that a reasonable juror could conclude that the new group was intimidated by the hospital from hiring the radiologist.  Therefore, the district court denied the hospital’s motion for summary judgment on the tortious interference claim as well.