Brunelle v. PeaceHealth
3:22-cv-05499
W.D. Wash.Oct 18, 2024Background
- Jessica Brunelle (admin staff, longtime employee) and Dr. Jonathan Adelstein (locum psychiatrist) sued their former employer PeaceHealth, alleging retaliation for whistleblowing and reporting discrimination.
- Brunelle raised concerns about a fellow psychiatrist, Dr. Shoemaker, including alleged fraudulent billing and discriminatory comments. She reported internally and to the Office of Organizational Integrity (OI).
- Adelstein made similar reports regarding Shoemaker’s care and billing, also submitting a report to OI. Shortly after, both claim they faced adverse actions: Brunelle alleged a hostile work environment and constructive discharge; Adelstein alleged termination of locum assignments and blackballing from future work.
- PeaceHealth and Dr. Robert Axelrod (supervisor) moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs’ reports were not protected activity or were not the cause of any adverse actions; they disputed any retaliation occurred.
- The court dismissed some claims but allowed others to proceed, finding factual questions for the jury, particularly as to Brunelle’s experience.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCA Retaliation | Both plaintiffs engaged in protected activity and faced retaliation | Plaintiffs’ activity not protected, no causation between reports and adverse actions | Brunelle’s claim proceeds; Adelstein’s fails (no evidence of retaliation post-report) |
| WLAD Retaliation | Retaliation for reporting discrimination/complaints | No adverse employment action; acts not materially adverse | Brunelle shows triable issue; Adelstein’s claim fails (no adverse action linked) |
| Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy | Discharged/forced out for whistleblowing on quality of care | No constructive discharge; insufficient link to protected activity | Brunelle’s claim proceeds; Adelstein’s claim fails |
| Aiding and Abetting Unfair Practices (Axelrod only) | Axelrod enabled Shoemaker’s discrimination by failing to act | No primary discrimination claim against Shoemaker; no aiding/abetting proven | Triable issue for Brunelle—claim proceeds |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute of material fact goes to jury)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (burden of proof on summary judgment)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation standard for adverse employment action)
- Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (constructive discharge: intolerable conditions required)
- Moore v. Cal. Inst. Of Tech. Jet Propulsion Lab’y, 275 F.3d 838 (FCA retaliation elements, Title VII standards apply)
- Vasquez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634 (retaliatory actions and what constitutes adversity)
- Sweeney v. Manorcare Health Servs., Inc., 2006 WL 1042015 (protected activity includes generic internal reporting of illegal billing)