Barbara Bowers v. The Ophthalmology Group
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21702
6th Cir.2013Background
- Bowers, an ophthalmologist, was a partner at The Ophthalmology Group from 2002 to 2010 and was expelled on March 4, 2010.
- Bowers filed suit on March 5, 2012 asserting Title VII gender discrimination and retaliation and related Kentucky claims.
- Bowers moved to disqualify The Ophthalmology Group’s counsel, M&M Livingston PLLC (M&L), citing prior representations in related matters.
- District court granted summary judgment that Bowers was not an employee under Title VII, dismissed state-law claims without prejudice, and denied the disqualification motion as moot.
- Appellate court granted Bowers’s disqualification motion on appeal, vacated the district court’s summary judgment, and remanded for disqualification of M&L; court adopted a substantial-relationship framework for evaluating prior-relationship conflicts.
- Dissent argues no substantial relationship given the limited 2008 work and would affirm the district court’s summary judgment on the Title VII claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether M&L’s prior representations are substantially related to the current case | Bowers (via plaintiff) contends prior ties are substantially related | Ophthalmology Group contends no substantial relationship | Yes; matters are substantially related and disqualification is warranted |
| How to determine substantial relationship without revealing confidences | Using a broad—confidential-information-based—analysis | Limit inquiry to general features of matters; avoid disclosures | Court adopts a substantial-relationship framework focusing on information that could be revealed; disqualification affirmed |
| Whether district court erred by not ruling on disqualification before summary judgment | District court should decide disqualification first | Proceedings could continue; error is harmless | Yes, vacate and remand to resolve disqualification on remand |
| Whether Bowers is covered by Title VII as an employee or partner | Bowers Claim fits Title VII as employee | Bowers is a partner, not an employee | District court’s grant of summary judgment reversed/ remanded due to disqualification; merits unresolved (per majority) |
Key Cases Cited
- Dana Corp. v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of Northern Ohio, 900 F.2d 882 (6th Cir.1990) (disqualification framework for former-client conflicts)
- Koch v. Koch Indus., 798 F.Supp. 1525 (D.Kan.1992) (substantial relationship standard via nature of prior representation)
- Analytica, Inc. v. NPD Research, Inc., 708 F.2d 1263 (7th Cir.1983) (substantial relationship guidance on confidences and relatedness)
- Weary v. Cochran, 377 F.3d 522 (6th Cir.2004) (employee vs partner analysis under agency principles)
- Lilley v. BTM Corp., 958 F.2d 746 (6th Cir.1992) (mixed questions of law and fact in employee determination)