Anderson v. E. Conn. Health Network, Inc. – July 2015 (Summary)

AGE/DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

Anderson v. E. Conn. Health Network, Inc.
No. 3:12-CV-00785 (RNC) (D. Conn. July 16, 2015), aff’d, No. 15-2605-cv, 2016 WL 4502034 (2d Cir. Aug. 29, 2016)

A surgeon sued a health system after his employment was terminated, alleging that by failing to accommodate his depression, the hospital network violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”). The surgeon also sued for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The surgeon was reported to hospital administration to be unsure of himself during surgery and unkempt in appearance, and at times appeared to be in a stupor-like state. The surgeon’s psychiatrist noted that these symptoms were related to his medication for depression. The psychiatrist adjusted his medication and his condition improved. Sometime later, several incidents related to the surgeon’s performance were reported. The administration suggested he take a leave of absence to be evaluated. It was recommended that the surgeon have a proctor when he returned to work. The administration and the surgeon worked to develop a plan for the surgeon’s resumption of duties. Proctoring was a part of this plan. The surgeon appealed the proposed plan because it would require reporting to the National Practitioner Data Bank (“NPDB”). An alternate plan was then submitted by the surgeon, which involved a “preceptor” for successive 30-day periods, which would not (according to the court) have to be reported to the NPDB. This plan was not acceptable to the CEO, who then terminated the surgeon’s employment. The parties continued to discuss his possible return to work until the ad hoc hearing committee denied his appeal of the original proctoring recommendation.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital on the ADA and CFEPA claims because there was only an obligation to provide a reasonable accommodation to his employment, not an accommodation of the surgeon’s choice. Specifically, the court concluded that the surgeon could not decline to accept the accommodation offered by the hospital (i.e., proctoring) solely because it was reportable to the NPDB. As for the age discrimination claims under the ADEA and CFEPA, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital partly due to the fact that the surgeon was hired at age 64 – less than a year before his discharge – by the same person who fired him, which indicated that the discharge was not age-dependent. The court dismissed the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim without prejudice.