McIntire v. Mich. Inst. of Urology (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT – RACE DISCRIMINATION

McIntire v. Mich. Inst. of Urology, No. 311599 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2014)

The Court of Appeals of Michigan affirmed a lower court’s granting of summary disposition in favor of a urology practice, finding that an African-American urologist had not proven that the termination of her employment violated the state’s civil rights act, the state’s whistleblower’s protection act, or public policy.

After numerous complaints from doctors, medical assistants, and patients regarding the urologist’s behavior, the employer’s practice manager and executive committee president met with the urologist to discuss the problems and to explain that the unprofessional behavior in question was unacceptable.  When the complaints continued, the members of the employer’s executive committee voted in favor of terminating the urologist’s employment, giving her one last chance to rectify her behavior.  After the urologist yelled at a medical assistant, her employment was terminated.

As the urologist was unable to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact that she was terminated from her employment for nondiscriminatory reasons.  The urologist failed to show intentional discrimination because she could not show that the individual who discharged her was predisposed to discriminate against African-Americans, or that this predisposition was being acted upon when her employment was terminated.  The urologist also failed to prove disparate treatment by being unable to show that she was a member of a protected class and that she was treated differently than members of a different class for the same or similar conduct.  Furthermore, the medical center had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the urologist’s termination, as the medical center’s staff and patients complained about her behavior and demeanor.

With regard to the urologist’s public policy claims, the court similarly found that the urologist could not prove that she was terminated due to her refusal to violate a law because the violation of the physician’s standard of care is not a violation of objective law.