Birnbaum v. Tarzana Anesthesia Med. Grp. Inc. (Summary)

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

Birnbaum v. Tarzana Anesthesia Med. Grp. Inc., B253705 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2014)

The California Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s dismissal of an anesthesiologist’s disability discrimination claim holding that the anesthesiologist failed to allege that he was an employee of a medical group, rather than an independent contractor. The anesthesiologist was under contract with defendant, a medical group. The contract stated that the anesthesiologist was an independent contractor for the first two years, after which, the medical group would vote to admit the anesthesiologist into the medical group’s partnership. After the two years, the partnership vote was scheduled, but the anesthesiologist was diagnosed with cancer and unable to work for a few months and the vote never took place. The anesthesiologist returned to the medical group and requested a scheduling accommodation in which he would not be assigned to surgeries that lasted more than two hours. Several months later, the medical group asked that he sign an addendum to his contract regarding the scheduling of shorter cases, which he did not execute. Nearly 18 months after he returned to work at a reduction of hours, the medical group voted not to make the anesthesiologist a partner or renew his contract. The anesthesiologist sued, claiming disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under a state antidiscrimination statute. The medical group argued that the anesthesiologist was not an employee, thus he was not protected by the antidiscrimination statute. The lower court agreed with the medical group and dismissed the complaint; the anesthesiologist appealed.

On appeal, the court held that the anesthesiologist was not protected by the antidiscrimination statute because he was in fact an independent contractor and not an employee of the medical group. The court explained that the medical group did not exercise control over the anesthesiologist when he performed his professional services. The anesthesiologist did not receive employment benefits from the medical group, the mutually agreed upon contract explicitly stated that the anesthesiologist was an independent contractor, and the medical group did not mandate performance of certain procedures, or direct his practice of anesthesia services other than his scheduling.