Scott v. Sarasota Doctors Hospital, Inc. — Nov. 2015 (Summary)

Scott v. Sarasota Doctors Hospital, Inc.
No. 8:14-cv-1762-T-30TBM (M.D. Fla. Nov. 5,  2015)

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a hospital’s motion for summary judgment on a hospitalist’s gender discrimination and retaliation claims. The hospitalist was employed by a physician services provider who assigned her to work at the hospital full time. While she was subject to a number of informal complaints about her “abrupt” and “curt” behavior, none of the concerns regarding the hospitalist’s behavior were ever reviewed through formal channels. She was, however, being encouraged to consider positions at other hospitals by her medical director, and the hospital was actively seeking a replacement for her. Feeling she was being treated differently than her male colleagues, who she alleged were given opportunities to respond to complaints and correct their behavior, the hospitalist filed a charge of gender discrimination against the hospital. Then, after having a confrontation with the hospital’s human resources generalist, the hospitalist was escorted from the hospital. The hospital then informed the physician services provider that it wanted the hospitalist permanently removed from the hospital because of her ongoing behavioral issues. The hospitalist was later terminated by her employer.

The hospital argued it was entitled to summary judgment on the hospitalist’s discrimination claims because it was not her employer. However, utilizing various legal theories, the district court determined that the hospital was a joint employer of the hospitalist. Next, the hospital argued that even if it were found to be an employer during the relevant time, the hospitalist’s gender discrimination claim failed because she failed to show that the hospital treated similarly-situated males more favorably. The court disagreed with this reasoning as well, citing the fact that a male physician who had exhibited similar behavior had been offered counseling, anger management classes, etc. before he was terminated. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to make the issue of discriminatory intent one for a jury.