Morman v. Campbell Cnty. Mem’l Hosp. (Summary)

GENDER DISCRIMINATION

Morman v. Campbell Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., No. 13-CV-243-ABJ (D. Wyo. Dec. 5, 2014)

A federal court in Wyoming dismissed an orthopedic surgeon’s motion alleging that gender discrimination from a county hospital resulted in damage to her compensation and conditions of employment by that hospital. Soon after becoming employed by the hospital, the surgeon began noting several issues with the hospital’s management of the clinic in which she practiced. She objected to the name change of the clinic and complained that the clinic did not have effective advertising, managerial staff, office space, or billing personnel, all of which combined, she claimed, put her at a competitive disadvantage with other orthopedic surgeons and affected the productivity bonus payments she would have received under her contract. Shortly after the surgeon renegotiated her employment contract, the terms of which were highly publicized in the area, the hospital entered into agreements with three male orthopedic surgeons from the area surgery center where the plaintiff surgeon had previously practiced. Under these agreements, which were not highly publicized, the hospital paid for the surgery center’s advertising campaign, radiology services and billing and allowed the surgeons to remain in their modern office space. She then sued the hospital and individually named board members for discrimination, alleging disparate treatment on the basis of gender.

The court determined that while the board members were not entitled to absolute legislative immunity, they were entitled to qualified immunity, because the surgeon failed to show that their conduct in approving the contracts of the three male surgeons was a violation of a clearly established constitutional right. Furthermore, the court dismissed the surgeon’s discrimination claim, finding that she had not alleged a plausible claim that she was treated differently than other similarly situated employees. Rather, the court found, the male surgeons from the surgery center brought more to the bargaining table than the plaintiff surgeon. This meant that they were not similarly situated, and thus could not be compared.