Shah v. Orange Park Med. Ctr., Inc. — Sept. 2016 (Summary)

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION/SHAM PEER REVIEW

Shah v. Orange Park Med. Ctr., Inc.
Case No. 3:14-cv-1081-J-34JRK (M.D. Fla. Sept. 16, 2016)

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed a lawsuit brought by a physician who claimed that he was subjected to racial discrimination by the hospital at which he worked, as well as by the staffing company that employed him, because he was prevented from holding leadership positions at the hospital, was provided unequal benefits and pay (such as reimbursement of licensing and CME fees), and was subjected to “sham” peer review based on alleged disruptive conduct.  The physician alleged that the work environment became so intolerable that he was forced to resign his employment – a “constructive discharge” – and the hospital then retaliated by terminating his privileges pursuant to the coterminous language of his employment agreement.

The court dismissed all of the physician’s discrimination and retaliation claims because he failed to allege even a modicum of facts from which a court could plausibly infer that racial discrimination had occurred.  For example, the physician did not describe any leadership positions that he had sought and been denied, nor did he allege the qualifications for leadership positions and whether he even satisfied those.  Further, while the physician alleged that his licensure and CME fees were not paid, he did not allege that he ever requested reimbursement of any fees, nor did he allege that any non-Asian-Indian physicians had received reimbursement of similar fees.  Finally, the court found that the plaintiff’s allegation of constructive discharge based on discrimination and retaliation did not contain the required evidence of severe harassment and hostile work environment.  According to the court, while it may be uncomfortable to be subjected to peer review, criticism, and hearings, such activities do not constitute an adverse employment action, nor are they sufficient to support a claim of constructive discharge.

According to the court, the physician’s own conclusion that an action was taken against him on the basis of his race could not, alone, lead to a plausible suggestion of discrimination.  Because the plaintiff failed to state any claims upon which relief could be granted, the court granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed the plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice.  Having dismissed all of the physician’s federal claims, the court also determined not to exercise jurisdiction over the physician’s state law claims and therefore dismissed the physician’s claims for protection under the state whistleblower statute (he alleged that his reports of quality concerns were ignored and met with sham peer review accusations) without prejudice.