Connors v. Dartmouth Hitchcock Med. Ctr. (Summary)

DISCRIMINATION

Connors v. Dartmouth Hitchcock Med. Ctr., Nos. 2:10-cv-94, 2:12-cv-51 (D. Vt. July 11, 2013)

The United States District Court for the District of Vermont denied, in part, a medical center’s motion for summary judgment, finding that a psychiatry resident had stated a claim under the Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act (“VFEPA”).

The resident had advised the medical center, at the time of her initial appointment, that she had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), and requested reasonable accommodations.  Although the medical center granted her request, the resident alleged that during one of her off-site rotations the accommodations were not actually provided and as a result her symptoms emerged.

The resident was placed on a leave.  She agreed to a remediation plan which she completed.  When the resident subsequently returned to the off-site rotation, it was alleged that the accommodations were not made available to her.  Concerns about the resident’s performance were raised again.  She was allowed to complete her current year of training, but her contract for the upcoming year was not extended.

The program director provided the resident with a favorable reference and she completed her training at another program.  Subsequently, she sued alleging disability discrimination and illegal retaliation under VFEPA, breach of contract, and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The court found that there was a triable issue of fact regarding whether the medical center terminated the resident’s employment because she suffered from ADHD.  “Whether [the medical center’s] reasons for terminating her residency were a pretext for discrimination on the basis of disability cannot be resolved at summary judgment.”  Similarly, the court found that there was at least minimal evidence of a causal connection between the program director’s desire to terminate the resident’s participation in the residency program and his hostility toward her claim of disability, so the claim for retaliation would have to be decided by a jury.