Antoniewicz v. Univ. of Tex. Health and Sci. Ctr. at Hous. – June 2015 (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

Antoniewicz v. Univ. of Tex. Health and Sci. Ctr. at Hous., Civil Action No. H-14-2083 (S.D. Tex. June 17, 2015)

The two female physicians alleged they were paid less and treated less favorably than male physicians in the university hospital’s OB/GYN department, claiming they were given less surgical time, were assigned more outpatient office-based assignments, and were excluded from meetings. After unsuccessfully resolving their concerns with the administrators, the female physicians reported the discriminatory conduct to the university hospital, who conducted an investigation. The university hospital found no discriminatory actions were taken. One month after the investigation, the hospital informed the female physicians their contracts would not be renewed. The female physicians claimed that the termination was based on their gender and sued under Title VII.

The physicians also claimed that the hospital administrators violated Section 1983 in their official and in their individual capacities by allegedly retaliating against the physicians by terminating their employment in order to intentionally chill their speech, discredit them and punish them for exercising their right to free speech.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed the physicians’ Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims, holding the 300-day period in which to submit a claim to the EEOC began when the physicians received their notice of non-renewal of their employment agreement. Since the physicians failed to file their claims with the EEOC within this 300-day period, the court dismissed the physicians’ Title VII claims. The court also dismissed the physicians’ Title VII Fair Pay Act claim as also being time-barred.

With regard to the physicians’ Section 1983 claims, the court dismissed the claims against the administrators in their official capacities, holding these claims were effectively made against the state and as such were prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment.

However, the court denied the administrators’ motion to dismiss the physicians’ Section 1983 claims brought against them in their individual capacities, holding the administrators were not eligible for qualified immunity because the physicians’ speech about discrimination and pay disparity were a public concern. Finally, the court also dismissed motions made by the administrators to force the physicians to plead their Section 1983 claims with greater specifity, holding the physicians’ descriptions of the specific discriminatory actions of each administrator, the process used to report the behavior, and the timeline of this process in relation to the administrator’s decision not to renew the physicians’ contracts were sufficient to plead a Section 1983 claim.