Budik v. Howard Univ. Hosp. (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

Budik v. Howard Univ. Hosp., Civil Action No. 12-1191(RBW) (D. D.C. Sept. 30, 2013)

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part a hospital’s motion to dismiss a physician’s claims of Title VII racial discrimination, among other things. The African-American radiologist was hired by the hospital to perform radiology services and shortly thereafter obtained temporary privileges and began providing services. The physician alleged, however, that the services she was asked to provide (backlog cases) were different than those described to her during pre-employment discussions and that she was told she would be paid as an independent contractor pursuant to a 1099, rather than on the payroll as other employees.  She further alleged that discriminatory comments about getting rid of African-American doctors were made by a Caucasian physician with whom she worked.

The district court dismissed the physician’s disparate treatment claim, finding that although the physician was a member of a protected class and did allege some form of disparate treatment (not being excused from performing a certain procedure from which another physician was excused), she did not allege that the coworkers who were being treated differently were nearly identical in their employment situation. Specifically, she failed to give the coworker’s title or any information about his experience, seniority, or expertise.  The court went on to also dismiss the radiologist’s claim for hostile work environment, noting that the type of discriminatory behavior she alleged was insufficient to amount to a hostile work environment.

The court refused to dismiss the physician’s retaliation claim, however, holding that the radiologist alleged a prima facie claim (that she complained about racial discrimination and was subjected to an adverse employment action – termination – just 16 days later).  The hospital argued that the retaliation claim should be dismissed because it was based on the same conduct which was deemed insufficient to support the radiologist’s discrimination claim.  The court rejected this argument, holding that a retaliation claim merely requires an allegation that an adverse employment action was in retaliation for the employee’s complaints about unlawful discrimination, without regard to whether the underlying discrimination claim is meritorious.