Brintley v. St. Mary Mercy Hosp. (Summary)

RACE DISCRIMINATION

Brintley v. St. Mary Mercy Hosp., No. 12-2616 (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2013)

The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a hospital and others, in a suit brought by a female, African-American surgeon alleging race discrimination under state and federal law.

The surgeon was required to undergo a proctorship after she accidentally cut two major blood vessels of an otherwise healthy woman in her early 20’s while performing a routine appendectomy.  A review of the surgeon’s practice also revealed that she had a high rate of surgical complications.  Because of this, the hospital imposed a proctorship, under which the proctors would have authority to intervene.  Moreover, the surgeon could not disregard the proctors’ directives or supervision.  The surgeon failed to comply with the proctors’ requirements on several occasions and, ultimately, her privileges were suspended.  The surgeon sued, claiming the hospital discriminated against her because of her race.  The lower court dismissed the case.  The appellate court affirmed, finding, for Title VII purposes, the surgeon was not an employee of the hospital.  The court also concluded that the medical staff bylaws did not create a contract, required to sustain a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1981.  Lastly, the court determined that under the state’s anti-discrimination law, there was no evidence of discrimination.  According to the court, “[the surgeon] alleges that [the hospital] imposed less restrictive proctorships upon two Caucasian doctors than it imposed on her.  But neither of the two doctors had the history of serious complications that [the surgeon] did.  Thus, neither of them are similarly situated to [the surgeon], and her [state law discrimination] claim therefore fails.”