Barnum v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr (Summary)

FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION/ADA

Barnum v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., No. 2:12-cv-930 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 2013)

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted in part and denied in part a hospital’s motion to dismiss a suit brought by an employed certified registered nurse anesthetist (the “CRNA”), claiming that the hospital discriminated against her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and retaliated against her in violation of the First Amendment.

The CRNA was going through a divorce.  The Chair of the Anesthesia Department and a psychiatrist at the hospital required her to report to the hospital’s emergency room because her coworkers had reported concerns about her.  She was not admitted, but was eventually placed on “an unspecified leave of absence.”  Two separate fitness for duty examinations confirmed the CRNA’s ability to return to work.  While on leave, the CRNA filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Civil Rights, claiming the hospital breached the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) when its representatives had unauthorized discussions with the CRNA’s counselors.  Eventually, the CRNA was allowed to return to work, but she claimed that the hospital eliminated her sick days, altered her schedule, changed her work location, and altered her car assignments.

In ruling on the hospital’s motion to dismiss, the court allowed the CRNA’s First Amendment retaliation claim to proceed, holding that the CRNA’s allegation that the hospital violated HIPAA was a matter of public concern.  Since the hospital did not assert whether it had adequate justification for treating the CRNA, as an employee, any differently from any other member of the general public, the claim was allowed to go forward.  With respect to the CRNA’s ADA claim, the court held that the CRNA “alleged significant changes in her terms of employment, including changes in her case assignment, locations, and schedules” to constitute an “adverse employment action” for purposes of the ADA.