Loyd v. St. Joseph Mercy Oakland (Summary)

PEER REVIEW PRIVILEGE

Loyd v. St. Joseph Mercy Oakland, No. 13-2335 (6th Cir. Sept. 10, 2014)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a security guard’s age, race, and sex discrimination claims against a hospital, holding that the hospital’s internal report on the security guard’s termination was protected by the peer review privilege and the security guard failed to show that she was discriminated against.

Plaintiff, a 52-year-old woman, was a security guard at the hospital. The security guard, already on final written warning for insubordination and leaving her post, was called to restrain an agitated and combative psychiatric patient. The security guard questioned the nurse’s orders and informed the patient that she was free to go. The patient became even more agitated and tried to remove her IV. Additional security guards were called, and the patient was properly restrained.

The hospital performed an internal investigation as part of its quality assurance review system. Upon the investigation’s conclusion, the hospital terminated the security guard. She then brought suit claiming age, race, and sex discrimination.

During discovery, the security guard attempted to compel the production of the quality assurance report. The hospital objected, claiming that it was protected by the peer review privilege.

The court held that the quality assurance report was protected by the peer review privilege because state courts have construed the privilege to encompass reports involving staff members who are not physicians or nurses. Next, the court affirmed the dismissal of the security guard’s race and sex discrimination claims because she had not proved she was treated differently or less favorably than similarly situated employees outside of the protected classes because she was replaced by a woman of the same race. Lastly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the security guard’s age discrimination claim because the hospital’s reason for terminating her was not pretextual.