AGE DISCRIMINATION
Madigan v. Webber Hosp. Ass’n, No. 2:11-cv-00094-JAW
(D. Me. Sept. 28, 2012)
The United States District Court for the District of Maine denied a hospital
and physician group’s motions for summary judgment on various claims brought by a radiologist who had previously provided
services to the hospital.
The hospital had contracted with a physician group, to which the radiologist
belonged, to provide radiology services. However, pursuant to the terms of the contract, the hospital notified the physician
group that it had decided to terminate the agreement and, instead, contracted with a new radiology group for such services.
The radiologist applied for a position with the new radiology group, but was not hired. He then sued the hospital and the
new radiology group for age discrimination, and also sued the hospital for tortious interference with his prospective contractual
advantage with the new radiology group.
The radiologist alleged that the hospital’s chief operating officer
had told the radiologist that he and his group were getting older prior to switching providers. In addition, he alleged that,
when he applied to the new radiology group, an employee of the new group told the radiologist that he was getting older and
that the hospital wanted a fresh face. Although the radiologist had stipulated for purposes of the motion, that the employee
was not a decision-maker for the new radiology group, the district court found that these comments could reflect the views
of the new group. Thus, the district court denied the hospital and new group’s motions for summary judgment with respect
to the age discrimination claims.
With respect to the tortious interference claim against the hospital, the
radiologist alleged that the hospital’s chief operating officer had told the new radiology group’s chief executive
officer that the radiologist was difficult to work with and uncooperative. The district court found that a reasonable juror
could conclude that the hospital did make these statements and that the medical group relied on such comments in deciding
not to hire the radiologist.
In addition, the radiologist alleged that the hospital interfered with
his prospective contract with the new radiology group, by conditioning awarding the contract to the new group upon the new
group’s agreement to not hire the radiologist. Although the contract was awarded to the new group before it made any
relevant hiring decisions, the district court found that a reasonable juror could conclude that the new group was intimidated
by the hospital from hiring the radiologist. Therefore, the district court denied the hospital’s motion for summary
judgment on the tortious interference claim as well.
http://www.hortyspringer.com/documents/madigan-...
HR Statements Can Be Evidence of Discrimination By Fiona W. Ong on November 8th, 2012 Posted in Employment Discrimination
Human resources personnel recognize that they are usually not the decision-maker
when it comes to employment decisions about other employees – rather, the decision-makers typically are those in the
employees’ direct chain of command. Courts have generally held that inappropriate remarks by non-decision-makers are
not direct evidence of discrimination. As noted by the federal district court in Madigan v Webber Hospital Assoc., however, there may be an exception for HR directors/managers.
In that case, a four-member radiology group was fired from a hospital
when the hospital replaced them with another group. All four members applied for employment with the new group, and three
were hired. The HR director for the new group repeatedly told the final applicant that he was “old” and they
wanted “a new face” when informing him that the new group was not going to hire him. Unsurprisingly, the applicant
sued for age discrimination. The court noted that while the HR director was not the decisionmaker, he was the chosen point
of contact by the group for the applicant, and it was certainly possible that his comments accurately reflected the reasons
for the group’s decision not to hire the applicant. A reasonable factfinder could conclude that the HR director knew
of the group’s reasons and was speaking for the group when explaining to the applicant why he was not being hired. In
the court’s view, based on the comments, the applicant had an “usually strong” claim of age discrimination.
So the lesson for HR professionals is to watch your words carefully!
http://www.laboremploymentreport.com/2012/11/08...
http://www.med.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Rich/2012/...
