Nathan v. Ohio State Univ. (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

Nathan v. Ohio State Univ., No. 2:10-CV-872 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2013)  

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted a university’s motion for summary judgment against a female anesthesiologist.  The anesthesiologist brought claims against the university pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, asserting discrimination and retaliation.

The anesthesiologist and the university had entered into an employment agreement which allowed for the agreement’s termination at any time with or without cause. After a new Anesthesiology Department chair was hired, the former chair advised him of issues he had faced regarding the anesthesiologist, which included complaints about her professionalism and teaching evaluations. However, the new chair decided to recommend the physician’s reappointment in February 2009 as he did not want to make any decision based on a predecessor’s evaluation. Two months later, the new chair decided that the anesthesiologist’s employment should be terminated because she engaged in conduct that was disruptive to the operations of the department by manipulating clinical assignments to her benefit and the detriment of others, by arriving late for clinical duty, abusing time off and disruptive interactions with surgeons.

The court found that the anesthesiologist failed to create a genuine issue of material fact by attempting to discredit assertions of previous department chairs who had advised that she not be reappointed. The court reasoned that the previous chairs had no discriminatory or retaliatory animus towards her, nor did they take any adverse action against her. The court further found that the anesthesiologist failed to cast substantial doubt as to the department chair’s reasons for her termination.  The anesthesiologist did not provide evidence to prove that she did not have a tendency to be tardy, to be unavailable, and to violate the sick leave policy.