PHILADELPHIA – An anesthesiologist who filed an age-based employment discrimination lawsuit against the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia will not have the ability to pursue punitive damages, per decision of a federal judge.
On July 8, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Harvey Bartle III partially granted the motion for summary judgment from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Children’s Anesthesiology Associates and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania.
Dr. Joseph Denham, a CHOP employee for more than 18 years and over the age of 60, alleged that he faced age-based discrimination after spinal injuries limited his ability to work shifts at the hospital, and the very same discrimination later led him to take a medical leave of absence from his duties.
The hospital disagreed.
“Denham filed this preemptive lawsuit alleging age and disability discrimination under local, state, and federal statutes without having suffered any adverse employment action. Plaintiff cannot identify any material facts that suggest that his age or disability support a basis for his claims,” per the hospital’s summary judgment motion.
“Plaintiff, a CHOP anesthesiologist with a Penn faculty appointment, has suffered no adverse employment action. He has not been terminated. He has not been demoted. His pay has not been reduced. His assignments at CHOP have not changed in any way. Plaintiff worked a reduced schedule over many years – more than he was entitled to under Penn’s policies for faculty – and wanted to continue working his reduced schedule indefinitely, with full benefits.”
Starting in 2004, CHOP said it allowed Denham to have an alternate and reduced schedule because of injuries he allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Further, in 2014, CHOP granted plaintiff permission to further reduce his schedule because of injuries he allegedly sustained in two more motor vehicle accidents.
“In July 2016, Dr. Dean Kurth became CHOP’s Anesthesiology Department Chair. Dr. Kurth met with every doctor in the Department and learned of the multiple alternate arrangements and schedules. In an effort to create fairness, equity, transparency, uniformity, and operational sustainability within the Department, Dr. Kurth introduced the concept of categorizing the doctors into employment models. These models would encompass work schedules and benefits that would allow each doctor to select the model that best suited their overall professional goals while assuring fairness,” according to the hospital’s summary judgment motion.
However, Denham did not select an employment model and was the only one of 120 faculty members in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care who refused to participate in the process.
He went on a medical leave of absence on after filing his employment discrimination claim through the EEOC on May 22, 2018, and currently remains on long-term disability.
UPDATE
“It is the Court’s view, based on the present record, that it is a jury question whether Dr. Denham suffered an adverse action under the relevant statutes. Whether Dr. Denham can prevail on the remaining elements of these statutes is likewise for the jury as genuine disputes of material fact exist,” Bartle said.
Thus, Bartle denied defendants CHOP and CAA’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance for compensatory damages – but found differently on the topic of punitive damages.
“The issue of punitive damages is a different matter altogether. The question here is whether the conduct of CHOP or any other defendant was sufficiently flagrant to meet the standards for punitive damages under the various statutes asserted,” Bartle said.
“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Dr. Denham, we conclude as a matter of law that no reasonable juror could find that he is entitled to punitive damages. The Court will grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this regard.”
Further, Bartle found that the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania were not liable for discrimination as an employer of Denham’s.
“It is true that Penn administered Dr. Denham’s benefits, paid his salary, and issued his W-2 tax forms. Nonetheless, CHOP hired Dr. Denham, reimbursed Penn for his salary and benefits, had the authority to terminate him, and managed his daily work activities,” Bartle stated.
“There is no evidence that Dr. Kurth was acting on behalf of Penn in his interactions with Dr. Denham or that Penn was involved with or knew anything about CHOP’s alleged discriminatory conduct toward Dr. Denham. No reasonable juror could find that Penn is liable, as Dr. Denham’s employer, for any discrimination that occurred here. For these reasons we will grant the motion of Penn for summary judgment on all Dr. Denham’s claims.”
The plaintiff is represented by Laura Carlin Mattiacci and Lane Schiff of Console Mattiacci Law, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Joe H. Tucker Jr. and Leslie Miller Greenspan of The Tucker Law Group, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:19-cv-00794
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com