Dr. Michelle G. Scott v. Sarasota Doctors Hospital, Inc.
688 F. App'x 878
11th Cir.2017Background
- Dr. Michelle Scott was an EmCare-employed hospitalist working exclusively at Sarasota Doctors Hospital from Nov 2011 until removal in Oct 2013; she alleged sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Florida law against both EmCare and the Hospital.
- Scott filed an EEOC charge against the Hospital on Sept 23, 2013; ten days later she informed an EmCare supervisor and the next day EmCare terminated her after the Hospital CEO complained about her conduct in HR.
- EmCare’s contracts with the Hospital and with Scott allowed the Hospital CEO to demand immediate removal of a physician and permitted EmCare to terminate Scott on that basis.
- The district court granted EmCare summary judgment (finding Scott failed to show pretext), denied summary judgment for the Hospital, and a jury later found the Hospital was not Scott’s joint employer; thus the jury did not reach discrimination/retaliation merits as to the Hospital.
- Scott moved for a new trial arguing the joint-employer verdict was against the great weight of the evidence and that the court erred by excluding testimony from Dr. Tracy Vasile; the district court denied the motion and this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EmCare’s termination of Scott was retaliatory (summary judgment) | Scott: close temporal proximity between EEOC charge and termination shows EmCare’s reason (Hospital request) was pretext for retaliation | EmCare: terminated Scott pursuant to contract after Hospital CEO requested removal for misconduct; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for EmCare; plaintiff failed to show pretext (temporal proximity alone insufficient) |
| Whether the Hospital was Scott’s joint employer (jury verdict; new trial motion) | Scott: Hospital controlled hiring, supervision, firing, provided facilities and integrated Scott into hospital operations—verdict against great weight of evidence | Hospital: EmCare controlled pay, benefits, taxes, malpractice, and direct supervision; Hospital could request removal but did not have authority to fire | Court: Denial of new trial affirmed; conflicting evidence supported jury’s finding that Hospital was not a joint employer |
| Whether exclusion of Vasile’s testimony was reversible error | Scott: Vasile’s testimony would show sex-based disparate treatment and Hospital control over physicians | Hospital: Vasile’s testimony irrelevant to Scott’s joint-employer question and to merits given verdict | Court: Exclusion harmless because jury found Hospital was not joint employer; any error did not affect substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 133 S. Ct. 2517 (Title VII retaliation requires but-for causation)
- Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (cat’s paw liability where biased subordinate influences decisionmaker)
- Butler v. Drive Automotive Indus. of Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 404 (joint-employer finding in staffing-manufacturer context)
- Pardazi v. Cullman Med. Ctr., 838 F.2d 1155 (Title VII can cover interference with employment relationship with a third party)
- Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Dev., Inc., 610 F.3d 1253 (standards for showing pretext at summary judgment)