Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co. — May 2016 (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

Elkharwily v. Mayo Holding Co.
No. 15-1492 (8th Cir. May 20, 2016)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment against a hospitalist’s claims of retaliatory discharge in violation of the False Claims Act, the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, and EMTALA.   Due to concerns regarding patient safety, interactions with hospital staff, and the hospitalist’s truthfulness, the clinic had decided to terminate the hospitalist’s employment contract at the tail end of his 90-day probationary period.  Ultimately, it offered him the opportunity to resign, which he took, but he then sued the clinic shortly thereafter, claiming retaliatory discharge.  The trial court granted summary judgment to the clinic, finding that the hospitalist had failed to show that his termination had been a pretext.  On appeal, the appellate court concurred with the trial court that the hospitalist failed not only to prove that his employment termination was a pretext for retaliation but also failed to show that his termination was motivated exclusively by his reporting of the clinic’s alleged violations of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act, EMTALA, and the False Claims Act. The court reasoned that nothing in the record supported the hospitalist’s retaliatory discharge claim, and that the clinic had articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination, namely, the hospitalist’s poor job performance evaluations that were confidential, based on feedback from numerous staff interviews, and performed independently of each other. Therefore, the lower court had properly granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment against the hospitalist.