Murphy v. Tuality Healthcare — Jan. 2016 (Summary)

RETALIATORY DISCHARGE – MILITARY SERVICE

Murphy v. Tuality Healthcare
Case No. 3:14-cv-01498-SI (D. Or. Jan. 15, 2016)

An anesthesiologist and National Guard member brought a suit against his former employer, a hospital, under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”), alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for fulfilling a six-week obligation to the military (of course, the physician said nothing of the fact that days before leaving to fulfill his military service, he consumed alcohol while on call and then engaged in an altercation with another physician at the hospital where he was providing services, an incident which later led to him being disciplined by the state medical board). The USERRA protects service members who are deployed while holding civilian jobs to guarantee that when the individual returns from service he or she will still be employed, preventing discrimination against service members.

The hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing that the anesthesiologist was not an employee but an independent contractor and therefore was not entitled to protection under the USERRA. In response, the anesthesiologist claimed that despite a contract saying that he was an independent contractor, he was an employee. The federal district court held that the anesthesiologist was an employee, after considering six factors: (1) the employer’s right to control, (2) the employee’s opportunity for profit loss depending upon his managerial skill, (3) any investment in equipment or material required for the individual’s tasks, (4) whether the service the individual performs requires a special skill, (5) the degree of permanence of the individual’s working relationship, and (6) whether the service the individual performs is an integral part of the employer’s business. In reaching its determination that the anesthesiologist was an employee despite explicit contract language to the contrary, the court emphasized that the reality of how the physician worked at the hospital took precedent over the parties’ expressed intentions.