Chernicoff v. Pinnacle Health Med. Servs. — Sept. 2016 (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT

Chernicoff v. Pinnacle Health Med. Servs.
No. 1:14-cv-1990 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 2016)

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted a health system’s motion for summary judgment against an oncologist who was a former employee and who had brought claims of fraudulent misrepresentations, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, and age discrimination.

The court addressed the fraudulent misrepresentations, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation claims together because they all arose out of the oncologist’s expectations of his employment with the health system.  The oncologist based his claims on 11 alleged misrepresentations made while he was meeting with agents of the health system to discuss the possibility of his employment.  The court found that the oncologist failed to offer any evidence that seven of the 11 alleged misrepresentations were actually false.

The oncologist also claimed that the health system assured him that he would be employed by the health center for a reasonable amount of time.  However, the court found that the oncologist failed to provide any evidence that the statement was false and entered into an employment agreement with a without-cause termination provision.  The court also found that the oncologist failed to proffer any evidence on the remaining claims and, consequently, granted the health system’s motion for summary judgment on the claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation.

Turning to the oncologist’s claim for discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), the court found that the claim was based exclusively on the oncologist’s own belief that he was fired because of his age.  The court noted that the oncologist produced no evidence that would lead a jury to believe that he was replaced by a “sufficiently younger person.”  One of the physicians who allegedly replaced the oncologist had signed an employment agreement two months before the oncologist signed his agreement.  With respect to the other physician who allegedly replaced the oncologist, the court noted that there was no evidence in the record to indicate that physician’s age.

The court also concluded that even if the oncologist had established a prima facie case, the health system had a number of reasons to terminate the oncologist, including poor work performance and poor attitude towards his employment, coworkers, and patients.  The record supported that the oncologist “plain out forgot” to arrive at work on time and that a patient had complained that he smelled like cigars.  These supported the health system’s non-discriminatory reason for termination.  Thus, the court ruled in favor of the health system and granted its motion for summary judgment.