King v. Garfield Cnty. Pub. Hosp. (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION

King v. Garfield Cnty. Pub. Hosp., No. 12-CV-0622-TOR (E.D. Wash. June 6, 2014)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied a defendant-public hospital’s motion for reconsideration regarding its ruling that a plaintiff-nurse was entitled to due process after his employment was terminated for a positive drug test.

 The nurse was prescribed painkillers with codeine after a dental procedure.  In the days that followed, another employee suspected that the public hospital’s supply of morphine had been diverted and diluted, and the hospital subsequently administered a drug test to its employees.  The nurse was found to have high levels of morphine in his system, and was subsequently put on leave, then terminated.  It was later found that while there was morphine in the nurse’s system, the results were not consistent with the use of morphine from the hospital, and thus the test results were inaccurate.

 In a prior opinion, the district court found potential merit in the nurse’s claims that his termination without a hearing was in violation of his right to due process, and that even though the nurse was later able to find employment elsewhere, a name-clearing hearing was still deemed appropriate because the accuracy of the termination charges was contested, the charges had been made subject to public disclosure, and the accusations were connected to his termination.  (See King v. Garfield Cnty. Pub. Hosp., No. 12-CV-0622-TOR (E.D. Wash. May 1, 2014)).

 In this subsequent opinion, the hospital argued that the due process protections were not triggered because the defamation did not occur within the course of termination.  The court disagreed, finding a strong inference that the nurse was terminated as a result of the inaccurate drug test.

 The hospital argued also that the termination was not publicly disclosed, as the nurse’s test results were confidential.  However, the court found that placing stigmatizing information in an employee’s personnel file, which is classified as public record, is sufficient to constitute publication.  Additionally, though the statement of the failed drug test was not technically false, the court held that it created a strong and stigmatizing inference of drug diversion.  Because the defamatory events were public, inaccurate, and within the course of the nurse’s termination, the court maintained that the nurse was entitled to a name-clearing hearing.