Kaufman v. Columbia Mem’l Hosp. (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION; BREACH OF CONTRACT

Kaufman v. Columbia Mem’l Hosp., No. 1:11-CV-667 (MAD/DRH) (N.D. N.Y. Feb. 19, 2014)
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted summary judgment to a hospital on the plaintiff-surgeon’s age and disability discrimination claims.  The court ruled that the surgeon was unable to prove a prima facie case of disability discrimination because he could not “identify any non-disabled, similarly situated physicians who were treated differently than him, or that were hired by [the defendant hospital] after his termination.”  With regard to the age discrimination claim, the court held the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to the term of his employment agreement.  When the plaintiff and his partner were hired by the hospital, the plaintiff was offered a three-year employment agreement; his partner, a five-year term.  However, the court ultimately granted summary judgment to the hospital on the physician’s age discrimination claim because the hospital was able to show legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for the plaintiff’s shorter term.  The plaintiff  was unable to show those reasons were a pretext for discrimination.  The physician also alleged breach of contract based on the hospital’s failure to provide him a hearing under the medical staff bylaws.  The hospital argued that bylaws do not create a contract under New York law.  The court denied the hospital summary judgment on that claim, ruling that the bylaws were incorporated into the physician’s employment agreement by reference.

**Annotation**

Kaufman v. Columbia Mem’l Hosp., No. 1:11-CV-667 (MAD/CFH) (N.D. N.Y. June 19, 2014)
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York denied plaintiff-surgeon’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s dismissal of his age and disability discrimination claims and denied defendant hospital’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of summary judgment for plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. The court held that although there was an intervening change in the state’s controlling law, plaintiff-surgeon still had not produced sufficient evidence to prove causation, that he was terminated due to a discriminatory intent. Lastly, the court denied defendant hospital’s motion for reconsideration because none of its arguments constituted an appropriate basis for reconsideration. Furthermore, the court reiterated that the physician’s employment agreement explicitly incorporated the hospital bylaws by reference.