Mendez-Arriola v. White Wilson Med. Ctr. (Summary)

DISCRIMINATION, RETALIATION, BREACH OF CONTRACT

Mendez-Arriola v. White Wilson Med. Ctr., No. 3:09cv495/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2010)

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied a medical clinic’s motion for a more definite statement and granted in part and denied in part its motion to dismiss various discrimination and breach of contract claims brought by a radiologist.

The radiologist was a shareholder employee of the clinic and acquired a partnership interest in the entity that owned the property on which the clinic was located. Over time, the radiologist claimed that her work conditions deteriorated because of her “female gender and the Clinic’s perception that she was mentally or psychologically disabled.” Eventually, the radiologist was summarily suspended for 90 days. She was not granted a hearing. Shortly after asserting a belief that the clinic was violating federal and state discrimination laws by, among other things, conditioning her return to work on a psychological examination, the radiologist was fired.

The radiologist filed suit claiming that the clinic and associated entities and persons violated state and federal discrimination laws, retaliated against her for complaining about the suspected discrimination, and breached their contract with her. The court made numerous rulings on the parties’ motions. Most significantly, the court allowed the radiologist’s claim that the clinic required that she submit to a medical examination, which was neither job-related nor consistent with business necessity, to proceed, acknowledging that such a claim was separate from her federal disability discrimination claim. However, under Florida state law, there was no authority for a separate medical examination claim. Accordingly, that claim was dismissed. The court also concluded that any waiver that may have been contained in the Bylaws was ineffective because “an employee’s rights under the ADA may not be prospectively waived.”

Additionally, the district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the radiologist’s claim for breach of the clinic bylaws. According to the court, the clinic offered no evidence to counter the radiologist’s allegations that the clinic violated the due process protections therein by failing to invite her to discuss, explain or refute the charges after she was advised of the charges.

Lastly, the radiologist’s claim of breach of fiduciary duty as to the clinic was dismissed because the radiologist’s claim focused on her termination as an employee of the clinic and the duty owed to her was only in her capacity as a shareholder, not an employee.