Wallace v. Hendersonville Hosp. Corp. — July 2016 (Summary)

TITLE VII EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

Wallace v. Hendersonville Hosp. Corp.
Civil No. 3:14-01976 (M.D. Tenn. July 1, 2016)

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted a hospital’s motion for summary judgment on claims brought by a nurse working as a House Supervisor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for sex discrimination and retaliation.

The hospital hired a registered nurse and about a year later promoted him to House Supervisor, a position that put him in charge of the hospital at night.  Approximately six months later, two female nurses complained that the House Supervisor had touched them inappropriately and had made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to them during their shifts.  The House Supervisor was issued a formal written warning stating that his comments were unacceptable and cautioning that future misconduct would be grounds for immediate termination of his employment.  Two months later, the hospital received an anonymous complaint that the House Supervisor had continued to make sexual comments.  The hospital launched a full investigation and found the allegations to be substantiated by multiple employees.  The House Supervisor was then fired.  He appealed the termination of his employment, but the peer review panel upheld the decision.

In support of his discrimination claim, the House Supervisor argued that the hospital treated him differently from similarly-situated women.  However, the court agreed with the hospital and found that the House Supervisor had only presented one example of a similarly-situated woman in a supervisory position.  The court found the House Supervisor’s conduct in this case (which included touching a co-worker’s breast, telling another co-worker she had a sexy neck, referring to female employees as “bitches” and circulating a photograph of himself in a revealing bathing suit) was far more egregious than the fleeting comment made by the female supervisor about underwear.  Additionally, the court pointed out that the House Supervisor’s disciplinary history was significantly different than the similarly-situated woman.  Therefore, the court ruled that the House Supervisor failed to prove his discrimination claim.

In support of his retaliation claim, the House Supervisor maintained that after he had reprimanded another nurse, she placed an anonymous call to report him to the hospital.  The hospital argued that the House Supervisor never engaged in a protected activity, which is required for a retaliation claim.  The court agreed with the hospital and held that “simply disciplining a subordinate is not enough to constitute a ‘protected activity’ under Title VII.” Therefore, the court granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment.