Brown v. Georgetown University Hospital Medstar Health
828 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2011Background
- Brown, an at-will employee and SEIU member, sues Georgetown Univ. Hosp. Medstar Health for Title VII discrimination and retaliation, Maryland Article 49B discrimination, wrongful termination, breach of contract, and IIED.
- Hospital moves for summary judgment, arguing failure to exhaust retaliation claims, absence of adverse actions, and Maryland-only claims; venue and governing law are in DC.
- Brown’s FMLA leave occurred Aug–Oct 2005; she resigned Nov 14, 2005 after extended leave and scheduling issues.
- Brown’s EEOC charge alleged national origin discrimination; retaliation claim is not explicitly in the EEOC complaint.
- Brown’s schedule changes, paid suspension, and escort off premises occurred before resignation and were investigated; Brown did not return to work.
- Court grants summary judgment in favor of Hospital on all Title VII and Maryland law claims, grounded on exhaustion and lack of adverse action, resignation, CBA grievance exhaustion, and lack of extreme outrageous conduct for IIED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of retaliation claim under Title VII | Brown argues retaliation was raised through EEOC, warranting exhaustion. | Hospital contends retaliation not referenced in EEOC charge; not exhausted. | Retaliation claim failed on exhaustion; granted summary judgment. |
| Whether any actions constitute an adverse employment action | Schedule change, suspension, removal from schedule, escorting off premises were adverse. | Actions were not material changes in employment status or duties. | No adverse action found; discrimination claim failed. |
| Wrongful termination claim viability when Brown resigned | Resignation to be treated as wrongful termination. | DC does not recognize wrongful discharge for at-will employees; resignation not termination. | No wrongful termination; claim dismissed. |
| Breach of contract (CBA) and grievance exhaustion | Hospital breached CBA by blocking meeting with management and denying representation. | Brown failed to exhaust Step 1 and Step 2 grievance procedures. | Exhaustion not satisfied; breach of contract claim dismissed. |
| IIED viability in employment context | Escort off premises and heart-condition claim constitute extreme conduct. | Conduct not extreme or outrageous in ordinary employment disputes. | IIED claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; burden on movant to show absence of material facts)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (material facts in dispute preclude summary judgment)
- Hutchinson v. Holder, 668 F. Supp. 2d 201 (D.D.C. 2009) (administrative charge prerequisite to Title VII action)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (each discrete adverse action requires separate exhaustion)
- Baloch v. Norton, 517 F. Supp. 2d 345 (D.D.C. 2007) (evidence can defeat summary judgment with sworn testimony)
- Noble v. U.S. Postal Serv., 537 F. Supp. 2d 210 (D.D.C. 2008) (exhaustion may be waived only in exceptional circumstances)
- Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202 (1985) (exhaustion of contract-dispute procedures in labor contexts)