361 F. Supp. 3d 762
E.D. Tenn.2019Background
- Paula Babb, a CRNA, was employed by Maryville Anesthesiologists from June 2015 until her termination on January 14, 2016; she has a degenerative retinal condition and reported vision difficulties.
- Colleagues and OR staff reported that Babb had trouble reading monitors and records; two surgeons asked that she not work in their ORs.
- Incidents leading to review: (1) a fracture-table case where a patient began to awaken and nearly fell (reported by an OR nurse), (2) a robotic surgery where a relief CRNA and an anesthesiologist observed high “twitch” counts indicating inadequate paralysis, and (3) a charting error of a medication dose.
- Physicians met in January 2016, concluded Babb could not provide safe care, and unanimously voted to terminate her; some participants discussed her vision at that meeting.
- Babb filed an ADA suit alleging Maryville regarded her as disabled and terminated her for that reason; defendant moved for summary judgment.
- The court excluded plaintiff’s CRNA expert report from consideration for summary-judgment purposes (expert opinions invading credibility and ultimate legal conclusions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Babb was "regarded as" disabled under the ADA | Babb was perceived as having significant vision impairment (comments by physicians, CRNA emails, Aycocke email) | Employer actions (requesting fitness-for-duty exam, discussing vision) were reasonable responses to performance concerns and do not show "regarded as" disability | Court: Sufficient evidence exists to satisfy the "regarded as" prima facie element (question of fact) |
| Whether there is a causal ("but for") link between perceived disability and termination | Vision was discussed at termination meeting; Aycocke email and Robertson's comment about disability insurance show perception influenced decision | Defendant: Termination based on clinical errors and safety concerns, not vision; Aycocke was not a decision-maker | Court: There is a triable issue about whether perceived vision was, at least in part, a cause of termination (plaintiff survives prima facie stage) |
| Whether defendant’s stated reason (patient-safety clinical errors) was legitimate or pretextual | Plaintiff disputes facts of the incidents and argues they were insufficient to justify termination; contends vision concerns motivated firing | Defendant: Provided particularized facts known at the time demonstrating honest belief that Babb lacked clinical skill/judgment; patient safety justifies termination | Court: Defendant offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason and honestly relied on facts known at the time; plaintiff failed to show those reasons were pretextual; summary judgment for defendant granted |
| Admissibility/consideration of plaintiff’s expert report at summary judgment | Expert opined Babb met standard of care and incidents should not have justified termination | Defendant moved to exclude the report for summary-judgment purposes as improper credibility commentary and ultimate-issue testimony | Court: Excluded expert report from the summary-judgment analysis because it attacked witness credibility and gave improper ultimate legal conclusions |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (expert testimony must be reliable and helpful to the trier of fact)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (court may not weigh evidence or assess credibility on summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards and burden-shifting)
- Sullivan v. River Valley Sch. Dist., 197 F.3d 804 (6th Cir.) (requesting medical exam alone does not establish "regarded as" disability)
- Ferrari v. Ford Motor Co., 826 F.3d 885 (6th Cir.) (McDonnell Douglas framework and prima facie elements under ADA)
- Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (6th Cir.) ("honest belief" rule; employer entitled to rely on particularized facts known at time of decision)
- Braithwaite v. Timken Co., 258 F.3d 488 (6th Cir.) (plaintiff must show employer lacked honest belief in proffered reason)