Howerton v. Harbin Clinic, LLC – July 2015 (Summary)

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Howerton v. Harbin Clinic, LLC, No. A15A0141 (Ga. Ct. App. July 16, 2015)

A technician was allegedly sexually harassed by a physician with clinical privileges in the hospital where the technician was employed. The technician’s husband confronted the physician, telling him that his wife had recorded her conversations with the physician. The physician proceeded to tell hospital administration that the technician was recording conversations in the operating room. Instead of moving the technician to another shift, the hospital moved the technician to another department, promising her additional hours and overtime pay, which did not materialize. The technician subsequently sued the physician and his clinic for tortious interference, among other things.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia found the technician did allege a claim of tortious interference against the physician because the physician was a “stranger” to the employment contract between the technician and the hospital because he did not have a direct economic interest in the agreement and was not a third-party beneficiary to the agreement. The court also held that a jury question existed as to whether the physician acted with malicious intent, that is, whether the physician reported an alleged HIPAA violation because of a sense of legal obligation or because he was seeking to undermine the technician’s sexual harassment allegations.

The Court of Appeals for Georgia also reversed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the physician on the technician’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The court held that the technician’s allegations were sufficiently outrageous in nature. However, the court did affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the clinic on the technician’s negligent supervision claim, noting the technician did not reveal the alleged sexual harassment to anyone at the clinic until three weeks before the physician sought employment elsewhere and that the clinic produced evidence showing that a thorough background check on the physician’s prior employment did not reveal any kind of improper conduct on his part.