Telesford v. Md. Provo-I Med. Servs., P.C. — Sept. 2016 (Summary)

DISCRIMINATION

Telesford v. Md. Provo-I Med. Servs., P.C.
Civil No. 13-cv-01359 (APM-DAR) (D.D.C. Sept. 2, 2016)

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part a hospital’s motion for summary judgment, permitting several African-American physician assistants’ racial discrimination claims to move forward, while dismissing their retaliation claims.

In this case, a white male replaced an African-American as medical director of the emergency department.  Shortly thereafter, a white male physician assistant was promoted to Lead PA, a position that was not advertised to the other physician assistants. The medical director claimed the promoted physician assistant was recommended along with two African-American physician assistants, but was chosen because he was the most qualified. When the medical director learned the other physician assistants were displeased with the promotion, he then changed his story and claimed the promoted physician assistant was actually hired by a corporation that the hospital contracted with to provide doctors and physician assistants. As a result, seven African-American physician assistants filed a discrimination claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).

Prior to the PAs filing their discrimination claims, the medical director had announced a new, poorly received, compensation structure for the physician assistants. When the physician assistants expressed dissatisfaction with the new compensation structure, the medical director pointed to the at-will termination clause of their employment contracts and threatened to consider their refusal to agree to the new compensation structure as their resignation. The compensation structure was ultimately made optional and the physician assistants who did not agree with the structure were reimbursed, with interest, any payments they did not receive, but would have received under the previous compensation structure.

Despite this, the African-American physician assistants claimed that they were being retaliated against, through the imposition of a new compensation structure and threat of termination, because they filed discrimination claims. The court concluded that the physician assistants’ retaliation claim could not survive because the threat of termination is not enough to qualify as retaliation, and any adverse effects resulting from their forced commitment to the new compensation structure were remedied.

The court refused to dismiss the PAs’ racial discrimination claims, however.  Particularly notable was an African-American nursing director’s testimony concerning the promotion, which called the medical director’s motivations into question. She testified that the medical director first acknowledged that the other physician assistants were unhappy with the promotion, but claimed it was not his fault because he did not hire the promoted physician assistant. But she testified that, on a separate occasion, the medical director was prepared to suggest that she recommended and supported the white physician assistant for the position, when in fact she had not.

The court held that because the medical director’s motivations for hiring the white Lead PA could be called into question, a question of fact remained over whether his explanations for why the Lead PA was hired were pretext.