Ashkenazi v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist. – April 2015 (Summary)

AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT (ADEA)

Ashkenazi v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., No. 13-15061 (11th Cir. Apr. 23, 2015)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a hospital district regarding age discrimination claims brought by an independent contractor surgeon.

The surgeon provided on-call services at several emergency rooms within the hospital district. In 2012, the hospital district revoked his major surgical privileges and reported him to the Florida Board of Medical Examiners. The surgeon then sued the hospital district, alleging that his privileges had been revoked due to his age, which was a violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act. However, his assertions were largely dismissed because he was an independent contractor rather than a hospital district employee. The surgeon appealed this determination, arguing that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he was an employee of the hospital district, and therefore he should be able to bring claims of discrimination and retaliation. He also argued that a Florida law allowed independent contractors to bring retaliation claims, and that the hospital district interfered with his employment relationships with other parties.

The court first reaffirmed the lower court decision that the surgeon was working as an independent contractor for the hospital district. The court disagreed with the surgeon’s assertions that the hospital district maintained a level of control and oversight over his medical services. The surgeon had his own practice, and his services to the hospital district only made up approximately 10% of his practice. Additionally, the surgeon’s written contract with the hospital district expressly stated that he worked as an independent contractor, and was not to be treated as an employee. The court also determined the surgeon’s state law claims were barred by a Florida statute that grants hospital districts immunity in lawsuits arising out of credentialing and peer review processes and that the surgeon could not prevail in this claim that the hospital district interfered with his relationship with third parties, as his claim offered only speculation about a potential relationship with a private party. Because there was not an actual and specific relationship that the district could have interfered with, the court affirmed the dismissal of this claim.