Romero v. County of Santa Clara (Summary)

DISCRIMINATION – DISABILITY AND RETALIATION

Romero v. County of Santa Clara
No. 11-cv-04812-WHO (N.D. Cal. July 10, 2014)

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part a county-affiliated hospital’s request to dismiss multiple claims made by an anesthesiologist, including retaliation and disability discrimination. The plaintiff, an openly homosexual male anesthesiologist, had reported concerns and allegations of discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation as well as patient endangerment by other physicians in the hospital. He was then subjected to five separate peer review investigations, which he alleged were conducted improperly in the effort to build support for his termination. On one occasion, a meeting was held as an educational case study to present the anesthesiologist’s alleged mismanagement of a patient, even though the anesthesiologist was unable to attend the meeting. Allegations were made that he disclosed confidential information from a colleague’s peer review, after which he requested a two-month leave due to work stress. The anesthesiologist’s doctors said the job had caused him significant health issues, and advised him not to return to work at the hospital. He requested several extensions of his leave and, ultimately, never returned to the hospital and was eventually terminated.

The hospital argued that there had been no adverse employment actions as the result of the complaints made by the anesthesiologist claiming that the peer reviews did not result in negative findings or actions. However, the court held that they may still qualify as adverse employment actions and that a jury could infer discriminatory motive based on the proximity in time between the anesthesiologist’s complaints and his peer reviews. This inference may also come from the fact that the anesthesiologist was not the subject of a single peer review in the two years before his complaint, but was referred five times within the year of his complaint. Because material facts remain in dispute on this matter, the court denied the hospital’s request for summary judgment on the claims alleging retaliation.

The court also found sufficient evidence to support the anesthesiologist’s claim that he was retaliated against after engaging in constitutionally protected speech. The anesthesiologist’s complaints indicated that his motivation was not to air his grievances with a colleague, but to bring to light inappropriate patient care. The court determined that a reasonable jury could find that retaliatory acts were taken due to these protected claims.

However, the court held that the anesthesiologist’s disability claims failed because he did not request an extension of his medical leave past the time allotted. The hospital granted him numerous extensions in his leave of absence, but was not asked to extend his leave past December 3, 2012. Because the anesthesiologist failed to request an accommodation, the hospital cannot be held liable for failure to provide it. The court also held that his claims of discrimination were time-barred because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing the claim to court.