Kim v. Humboldt Cnty. Hosp. Dist. — Nov. 2015 (Summary)

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT

Kim v. Humboldt Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
Case No. 3:12-cv-00430-MMD-WGC (D. Nev. Nov. 12, 2015)

The District Court for the District of Nevada denied a hospital’s motion for summary judgment with regard to a general surgeon’s claim that her First Amendment rights were violated when her employment was terminated in retaliation for seeking re-election to the Board of Trustees.

While the surgeon was serving her first term, the Board adopted a new conflict of interest policy to address conflicts of interest arising from employees’ service on the Board. Pursuant to the new policy, hospital employees were prohibited from engaging in any employment, activity or enterprise, including service on the hospital Board, which was in conflict with their duties as employees. If a conflict of interest were to arise, the policy provided that an employee could either resign from employment before taking office or accept paid or unpaid leave. Shortly after the policy was passed and after the surgeon applied for re-election to the Board, the Board voted to terminate her contract based on its decision to move from a single surgeon arrangement to a surgical services group. The surgeon sued, claiming that the pursuit of a surgical group was pretext – and that she was really fired in retaliation for seeking re-election to the Board, which was an activity protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Because neither party asserted that the surgeon’s employment was terminated based on the new conflicts of interest policy adopted by the Board, the court disregarded the parties’ arguments over whether that policy was, in and of itself, constitutional. It denied summary judgment to the hospital on the retaliation claim, noting that there was a genuine issue of fact under dispute concerning whether the hospital’s purported reason for termination (pursuit of a group contract) was pretext.