Yau v. Saint Francis Mem’l Hosp. – June 2015 (Summary)

RETALIATION

Yau v. Saint Francis Mem’l Hosp., Case No. 13-cv-02558-DMR (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2015)

A federal district court in California denied a hospital’s motion for summary judgment on claims that it retaliated against a nurse for reporting safety concerns to the state Department of Public Health. Accordingly, the nurse’s claims will be heard by a jury. However, the court granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment on claims that it discriminated against the nurse based on her race and ethnicity.

The nurse had demonstrated strong job performance throughout her employment, and in 2009 worked 140 hours per two-week pay period. However, by the end of that year, the hospital prohibited the nurse from working extra shifts, and a policy was set in place to limit the number of consecutive shifts that a direct patient care provider could work. The following year, the nurse made internal complaints through the hospital’s internal event reporting system, because she was concerned with some of the care provided in the hospital’s burn unit. However, there were multiple instances where she received no response and the hospital did not take any corrective measures.

During a review of patient records, the hospital found that the nurse had accessed a patient’s medical record that she had no legitimate reason to access. The nurse was then fired for violating HIPAA and hospital policies.

With respect to the discrimination claims, the nurse argued that HIPAA violations had occurred before, but the other non-Asian nurses who committed the violations were not terminated. The court noted that the nurse failed to specifically identify any such instances, and that there was thus no evidence to support this claim.

With respect to the retaliation claims, the court found that under California law the nurse had raised a triable issue of fact over whether the reasons she was terminated were pretext for retaliation. The court noted that a jury could find that the hospital did not conduct a good faith investigation into the alleged HIPAA violation and that the discipline she received was more harsh than for similarly situated individuals.