Kim v. Humboldt Cnty. Hosp. Dist. – March 2015 (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT

Kim v. Humboldt Cnty. Hosp. Dist., No. 3:12-cv-00430-MMD-WGC (D. Nev. Mar. 25, 2015)

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied a county hospital’s motion to dismiss a surgeon’s First Amendment claim against it, holding that a jury was required to determine if the surgeon’s complaints were the motivating factor in her termination. Plaintiff was the lone general surgeon employed at the defendant, a county-owned hospital. The surgeon also was a member of the hospital’s Board of Trustees. Throughout the surgeon’s tenure, she and other physicians brought complaints to the hospital’s administrator regarding the hospital’s internal operations. After four years of the surgeon being a Board member, the Board amended its corporate compliance policy to prohibit hospital employees from serving on the Board. Nevertheless, the surgeon filed for reelection, and the Board terminated the surgeon’s employment citing its desire to contract with a third-party surgical service.

The surgeon brought suit challenging the termination of her employment, which she claimed violated her First Amendment rights by limiting her ability to seek reelection and for lodging complaints. The hospital argued that the surgeon’s contract was terminated pursuant to its without cause termination clause, due to a business decision and not her speech.

The court held that the surgeon’s complaints to the hospital administrator constituted protected speech on matters of public concern. These complaints included nursing training, personnel needs, patient education, slowness in lab results, and issues with the operating room. Next, the court stated that an issue of material fact existed as to the hospital’s motivation behind the surgeon’s termination. The court explained that the Board’s simultaneous vote to terminate the surgeon and interview outside surgical services suggested pretext. Lastly, the court decided that further discovery was needed in order to rule on the surgeon’s claim that the hospital violated her First Amendment rights by restricting her ability to seek reelection.