Clifford Owhor v. St. John Health-Providence Hospital
503 F. App'x 307
6th Cir.2012Background
- Owhor, a Nigerian-born PA, worked at Providence Hospital July 2007–March 2008 under Bass and Eckstein; Jacobs supervised operating room.
- In Sept 2007 Dr. Cheung began treating Owhor unfairly; Cheung allegedly yelled and barred access to lounges; Bass urged Cheung to defer to floor management.
- A Nov 2007 meeting with Legette raised concerns about race and discrimination; Legette believed race claims but did not want them escalated beyond HR.
- On Jan 18, 2008, Owhor’s six-month review required schedule changes and he claimed ongoing discrimination by Eckstein, Bass, and Cheung.
- In March 2008, after reports of sleeping during surgery on March 11, Owhor was examined; Occupational Health cleared him, but he was terminated March 25 for sleeping or appearing to sleep.
- Court summarized that Providence conducted a reasonably informed investigation before terminating, with Dr. Cheung not involved in the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination prima facie and pretext | Owhor asserts race/national origin discrimination with adverse action. | Providence had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason based on sleeping incident following a proper investigation. | Summary judgment upheld; no pretext shown. |
| Hostile work environment | Co-worker conduct and discriminatory remarks created a racially hostile environment. | Conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to alter conditions of employment. | Summary judgment affirmed; no actionable hostile environment. |
| Defamation | Providence’s communications about termination caused damage via third-party employment offers. | No actionable false statements by Providence; statements were hearsay or non-defamatory. | Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine defamation issue. |
| Denial of leave to amend (retaliation under ELCRA) | amendment should be allowed to add retaliation claim. | Retaliation claim would fail given the reasonably informed termination decision. | Moot; affirmed that the denial was proper given the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 2006) (employer reasonably informed and considered decision required)
- Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 1998) (pretext analysis of discrimination claims)
- Romans v. Mich. Dept. of Human Servs., 668 F.3d 826 (6th Cir. 2012) (pretext may rely on reasonableness of decision)
- Jackson v. Quanex Corp., 191 F.3d 647 (6th Cir. 1999) (co-worker harassment relevant to hostile environment)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (standard for hostile environment severity/pervasiveness)
- Mitan v. Campbell, 706 N.W.2d 420 (Mich. 2005) (Michigan defamation elements and standards)