United States District Court, D. Alaska
MEGHAN L. FASHJIAN, Plaintiff,
v.
ALASKA RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(DKT. 28)
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I.
INTRODUCTION
The
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Alaska Radiology
Associates, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (the
“Motion”).[1] The Motion has been fully briefed and the
Parties did not request oral argument.[2] Based on the
record before the Court and for the reasons discussed below,
Defendant's Motion is GRANTED.
II.
BACKGROUND
On
December 20, 2017, Plaintiff Meghan L. Fashjian filed a
Complaint in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska,
Third Judicial District at Anchorage.[3] Plaintiff alleges that she
began working as a Nurse Practitioner for Defendant, a
physician-owned, private radiology group, on or about June
27, 2016.[4] Plaintiff further alleges that Dr.
Inampudi, one of Defendant's owners and one of
Plaintiff's supervisors, “immediately showed
hostility” toward Plaintiff, treating her “in a
hostile, demeaning manner, that disparately impacted the
terms and conditions of her employment.”[5] Plaintiff
believes that she was treated differently due to her gender
and complained to Dr. Coyle, President and another owner of
Defendant.[6] Plaintiff alleges that, in response to her
complaints, “Dr. Coyle offered to allow her to
terminate her contract and leave the job rather than attempt
to correct Dr. Inampudi's conduct.”[7] According to
Plaintiff, Dr. Coyle fired her when she decided to pursue a
resolution to her complaint against Dr. Inampudi instead of
resigning.[8]
The
Complaint explicitly lists a single cause of action under the
heading “Gender Based Discrimination against Meghan
Fashjian: 42 U.S.C. § 2000E-2(A).”[9] In support of
this claim, Plaintiff argues that Defendant “permitted
Dr. Inampudi to treat her in a disparate way, based on her
gender.”[10] Plaintiff then argues that she was
terminated from employment in retaliation “after she
complained about the gender based harassment that she was
experiencing by Dr. Inampudi.”[11]Plaintiff claims that she
suffered a variety of injuries as a result and requests
damages, attorney's fees, and costs of
suit.[12]
On May
2, 2018, Defendant removed the case to this Court and filed
an Answer.[13] On October 4, 2019, Defendant filed the
present Motion.[14] In the Motion, Defendant interprets the
Complaint to raise three possible violations of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”),
specifically: (1) disparate treatment; (2) hostile work
environment; and (3) retaliation.[15]Defendant argues that all
three claims fail as a matter of law.[16] Contrary to
Plaintiffs allegations, Defendant asserts that
Plaintiff's attitude and performance, including resisting
physician instructions, “most negatively impacted her
work.”[17] According to Defendant, Plaintiff did
not make a specific allegation of misconduct based on gender
until after Dr. Coyle had discussed “amicably voiding
her employment contract.”[18] Defendant argues,
“Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that but for her
general complaints about Dr. Inampudi's supervision, she
would not have been discharged, given the clear record of
significant concerns about her attitude and conduct . . .
.”[19]Therefore, Defendant concludes that
Plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case for each
of the three possible claims and summary judgment should be
granted in Defendant's favor.[20]
Plaintiff
filed her Opposition on November 5, 2019 and clarifies that
she is only pursuing a retaliation claim under Title
VII.[21] Plaintiff argues that, in a
“battle of affidavits, ” the credibility of
witnesses and the “substantial internal
contradictions” presented by Defendant must be
presented and decided at trial.[22] Plaintiff takes issue
with the affidavits submitted by Defendant, arguing that they
contain hearsay, share identical statements without
specificity, present inconsistencies, and lack substantiating
evidence.[23] In addition, Plaintiff contends that Dr.
Coyle's affidavit raises factual disputes as to the
timeline of his investigation into Plaintiffs allegations
against Dr. Inampudi.[24] Plaintiff argues that Defendant's
Motion must be denied in light of the differences between
Plaintiffs and Defendant's versions of the
timeline.[25]
In the
Reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to meet the
elements of a Title VII retaliation claim.[26] Defendant
claims that Plaintiff's supervising physicians had
already fostered concerns about Plaintiff's attitude and
job performance before she brought any complaints against Dr.
Inampudi.[27] Defendant therefore argues that a
retaliation claim fails because, prior to her discrimination
claims, Defendant had decided to terminate Plaintiff based on
her conduct.[28] Moreover, Defendant argues that, despite
the timeline at issue, Plaintiff cannot meet her burden to
show that her complaint was the but for cause of her
termination and she has failed to refute Defendant's
stated reasons for her termination.[29] Therefore, Defendant
again asserts that Plaintiff s retaliation claim fail as a
matter of law.[30]
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
A.
Summary Judgment
A party
may move for summary judgment on a claim, a defense, or a
part of either under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a).
Summary judgment is appropriate where, viewing the evidence
and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, [31] “the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.”[32] Material facts are those which might
affect the outcome of the case.[33] A genuine issue of
material fact exists “if the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.”[34] “There is no genuine issue of fact
if, on the record taken as a whole, a rational trier of fact
could not find in favor of the party opposing the
motion.”[35] A movant's burden may be met by
“‘showing'-that is, pointing out to the
district court-that there is an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party's case.”[36] Thus,
“at the summary judgment stage the judge's function
is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth
of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine
issue for trial.”[37]
Once a
movant has met its initial burden, Rule 56(e) requires the
nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and identify facts
which show a genuine issue for trial.[38] Evidence
introduced in opposition to a summary judgment motion does
not have to be admissible at trial; the permissible evidence
is identified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).[39] However,
“conclusory assertions are wholly insufficient to
sustain either the [moving party's] burden or the
district court's grant of summary
judgment.”[40] Moreover, “[a] party opposing a
summary judgment motion must produce ‘specific
facts showing that there remains a genuine factual issue for
trial' and evidence ‘significantly probative as to
any [material] fact claimed to be
disputed.'”[41]
B.
Retaliation Claim under Title VII
Under
Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate
against any employee because that employee “has opposed
any practice made an unlawful employment practice” or
“has made a charge, testified, assisted, or
participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding,
or hearing.”[42] To make a prima facie showing
of retaliation, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) that
she was engaging in protected activity/opposition, (2) that
she suffered an adverse employment decision, and (3) that
there was a causal link between her activity and the
employment decision.”[43]Under the third factor, the
plaintiff must show that the adverse employment decision
would not have occurred “in the absence of-that is, but
for-” the protected activity.[44] “Once a prima
facie case has been made, the burden of production
shifts to the defendant, who must offer evidence that the
adverse action was taken for other than impermissibly
discriminatory reasons.”[45] A plaintiff can then rebut the
defendant employer's proffered reason by direct
evidence-i.e., “specific, substantial evidence
of pretext, ”[46]-or by circumstantial evidence consisting
of “more than a mere refutation of the employer's
legitimate reason and a mere assertion that the
discriminatory reason must be the cause of the
firing.”[47]
IV.
ANALYSIS
Defendant
now moves for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff failed
to meet “her burden of demonstrating that her
employment would not have been terminated but for her vague
alleged assertion to Dr. Coyle and Mr. Hinger that Dr.
Inampudi was misogynistic.”[48] Applying the
three-element framework for a retaliation claim, the first
two elements are not at issue here. The Parties do not
dispute that Plaintiff's complaint against Dr. Inampudi
would be a protected activity or that termination could be an
adverse employment action. Plaintiff argues that her
complaint caused Defendant to terminate her employment and
focuses on establishing “a timeline wherein she engaged
in protected activity, and then suffered an adverse
employment act.”[49] Not only does Defendant disagree with
Plaintiff's timeline of events, Defendant also contends
that the retaliation claim fails because Plaintiff's
employment was terminated for “legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons.”[50]
A.
Prima Facie Showing of Retaliation
To
establish a prima facie case for retaliation, a
plaintiff must demonstrate the causal link between a
protected activity and an adverse employment
action.[51] The causation element may be
“inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the
employer's knowledge that the plaintiff engaged in
protected activities and the proximity in time between the
protected action and the allegedly retaliatory employment
decision.”[52] “Temporal proximity between
protected activity and an adverse employment action can by
itself constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence of
retaliation in some cases.”[53] However, this is not an
absolute rule and the inference does not follow
automatically, but rather, “courts must consider the
surrounding circumstances.”[54]
In this
case, Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima
facie case because Plaintiff has failed to show the
necessary causal link to sustain her retaliation claim.
Plaintiff alleges that the first time she lodged an official
complaint about discrimination by Dr. Inampudi was during a
meeting with Dr. Coyle on August 24, 2016.[55] Plaintiff
concludes that Defendant terminated her employment shortly
thereafter in response to her complaint.[56] Plaintiff
relies on the proximity in time between her complaint and the
termination in isolation; Plaintiff has not provided any
other evidence of causation or addressed the surrounding
context.
On the
other hand, Defendant asserts and the record shows that
Defendant's physician-owners were already discussing
Plaintiffs behavior and performance prior to the August 24,
2016 meeting. It is uncontested that Plaintiff's
supervising physicians were frustrated from the very start of
Plaintiff's employment by the delay in her credentialing,
which prevented Plaintiff from performing certain aspects of
her job.[57] The record also shows that the
physicians expressed concern regarding Plaintiffs attitude
toward her job as early as August 9, 2016.[58] On August 18,
2016, Dr. Inampudi and Dr. Reed, another physician-owner who
supervised Plaintiff, exchanged emails with Ward Hinger,
Defendant's Chief Administrative Officer, and Dr.
Coyle.[59]Dr. Inampudi wrote, “[Plaintiff] is
continuing to have attitude issues. I think she is competent
but in my opinion she is not a team player. . . . she
certainly can't take this job and her employers for
granted.”[60] In response, Dr. Reed agreed and
suggested, “Something has to change, frankly we
don't need her if this is the way she's going to act
up here.”[61]
On
August 20, 2016, Dr. Inampudi and Dr. Reed followed up with
additional examples and details of Plaintiffs
behavior.[62] In summary, the physicians claimed that
Plaintiff was not being proactive with her responsibilities
or completing assignments as instructed by the supervising
physician.[63] During this exchange, Dr. Reed proposed,
“We might ask her straight out if she is happy here and
if she see's [sic] herself settling into this
position, working FOR physicians with a positive attitude. If
she does not, we might want to help her find her
way.”[64]
Even in
Plaintiff's timeline of events, following the initial
August 24, 2016 meeting, the meetings with management did not
concern her complaints against Dr. Inampudi. Instead, at a
meeting on August 30, 2016, Dr. Coyle “shifted the
focus of the discussion toward whether [Plaintiff] was
‘happy'” and “suggested that he would
be willing to void [Plaintiff's] contract, should [she]
decide to resign.”[65] At a meeting on September 13, 2016,
“Dr. Coyle states that [Plaintiff] should resign,
because it seemed [Plaintiff] was not a good
fit.”[66] Finally, on September 16, 2016,
Plaintiff was given the choice to resign or be
fired.[67] There was no mention of Plaintiff's
allegations against Dr. Inampudi during these meetings and
Plaintiff does not contest Defendant's representation of
her conduct.
Given
this broader context established by the record as a whole,
Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient evidence that Defendant
terminated Plaintiff's employment because she complained
about Dr. Inampudi. Therefore, Plaintiff has not made a
prima facie showing of retaliation under Title VII.
B.
Defendant's Legitimate Reason for Terminating
Plaintiff's Employment
In the
event a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of
retaliation, it becomes the defendant's burden to show
that the adverse action was taken for a legitimate reason, an
assertion which the plaintiff may then refute with additional
evidence.[68] To demonstrate that the defendant's
stated reason is pretext, the plaintiff “must produce
specific facts either directly evidencing a discriminatory
motive or showing that the employer's explanation is not
credible.”[69] Merely denying the credibility of the
defendant's witnesses is not sufficient.[70] Summary
judgment is appropriate where evidence to refute the
defendant's legitimate explanation is totally
lacking.[71]
Even if
Plaintiff had satisfied the elements of a retaliation
claim-which the Court is not persuaded she has-Plaintiff has
not met her burden to show that Defendant's stated
reasons for her termination were a pretext for
discrimination. In this case, Defendant has asserted a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating
Plaintiff's employment: Plaintiffs attitude and job
performance did not meet Defendant's
expectations.[72] Plaintiff does not proffer any evidence
to refute those assertions, i.e., evidence that she
received positive evaluations. Plaintiff even admits that
certain instances of insubordination cited by Defendant
occurred.[73] For example, in one instance, Dr.
Inampudi asked Plaintiff to handwrite additional notes on a
consent form to review with a patient; Plaintiff refused,
citing that the forms were preprinted and
preapproved.[74] While Defendant claims to have
terminated Plaintiff's employment for failure to follow
instructions, Plaintiff admits that she declined to perform
certain tasks because “it wasn't [her]
job.”[75]
Rather
than proving pretext, Plaintiff seeks to defeat the Motion by
asserting factual disputes remain at issue. Plaintiff argues
that Defendant's Motion rests on “substantial
internal contradictions” and that “[a] trier of
fact must be allowed to judge the credibility of the
witnesses presented by the parties.”[76] As cited
above, Plaintiff must allege specific facts and produce
evidence weighing on the witness's
credibility.[77] Here, Plaintiff simply questions,
without providing any evidence, whether Defendant truly
considered terminating Plaintiff's employment prior to
August 24, 2016.[78] Plaintiff's contention regarding the
timing of her resignation and the timeline established by Dr
Coyle's affidavit is inapposite.[79] Only facts tending to
prove or disprove the causal link between Plaintiffs
allegations and her termination are material at this point.
Plaintiff fails to produce evidence of causation or evidence
that Defendant's stated reasons for her termination are
pretext.
In
summary, Plaintiff has not made a prima facie case
for retaliation. Moreover, Defendant provides legitimate
reasons for her firing and Plaintiff does not successfully
refute Defendant's reasons as pretext. As a result, there
are no issues of material fact remaining and Plaintiff's
retaliation claim fails as a matter of law.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the
foregoing reasons, the Motion at docket 28 is
GRANTED.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
---------