Cosby v. Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC (Summary)

TITLE VII AND ADEA

Cosby v. Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC, No. 5:11cv159-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. May 16, 2013)

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgment in favor of a hospital in a lawsuit brought by a formerly employed 51-year-old, African-American phlebotomist alleging, among other things, age and race discrimination.  The hospital terminated the phlebotomist for accessing another employee’s medical records in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and not admitting the unauthorized access when confronted by her supervisors.  The phlebotomist sued, claiming, among other things, race discrimination under Title VII and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).

The district court held that the phlebotomist failed to show that the hospital discriminated against her based on race or age. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting approach to claims of discrimination, the court found that the phlebotomist did not rebut the hospital’s legitimate non-discriminatory reason for her termination.  That is, the hospital assertion that it terminated the phlebotomist because she violated HIPAA and because she refused to admit the violation even though there was documentation showing otherwise.  The district court also rejected the phlebotomist’s claims of retaliation under the ADEA, Title VII, and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).  According to the court, the ADEA and Title VII retaliation claims failed because the phlebotomist admitted during deposition testimony that she never complained about discrimination before her termination. Likewise, her FMLA retaliation claim failed because it was unclear whether she was actually opposing an employment practice made unlawful by the FMLA.

The court also granted summary judgment on all of the phlebotomist’s state law claims. The court rejected her breach of contract claim because she was an at-will employee with no employment contract and, thus, under state law, the hospital could terminate her employment at any time.  The court held that her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was time-barred because she filed the claim outside the statute of limitations.