Odeluga v. PCC Cmty. Wellness Ctr. – April 2015 (Summary)

DISCRIMINATION

Odeluga v. PCC Cmty. Wellness Ctr., Case No. 12–cv–07388 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 1, 2015)

The United States District Court of the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion for summary judgment filed by a health center and several physicians. A former fellow brought a lawsuit against a federally-qualified community health center and several physicians who served as co-directors of the health center’s maternal child health fellowship program. The fellow claimed that she had been discriminated against based on her age, national origin, and race, and that she had been subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment.  In support of her claim for discrimination, the fellow alleged that one of the co-directors of the training program had said to her: “You Nigerians like to be overly ambitious. You people are greedy.” The court found that the stray comment, even if made, did not create a “total picture of discrimination” and thus could not be used as direct evidence of discrimination.

The fellow also tried to present indirect evidence of discrimination. However, the record supported that the health center had received complaints about the fellow’s performance from early in the training program. According to her evaluations, the fellow failed to recognize important tissue landmarks during surgery, including a failure to recognize the difference between the bladder and the uterus. The evaluations also supported that the fellow was slow to respond to patient emergencies, and often had trouble remembering basic obstetrical knowledge. One evaluation stated that the physician had left blood and other fluids on her shirt for hours after a delivery, even while seeing other patients. Yet another evaluation noted that the fellow fell asleep in the labor room while a resident delivered a baby without supervision.

In granting the health center’s motion for summary judgment on the discrimination claims, the court held that the fellow could not demonstrate that she was meeting the health center’s legitimate performance expectations and thus could not establish a case for discrimination. The fellow also could not show that she was treated less favorably than other similarly situated fellows in her class. Her age discrimination, harassment, and hostile work environment claims failed for the same reasons.