Garvey v. Ogden Clinic Professional
1:22-cv-00077
| D. Utah | Apr 14, 2025Background
- Dr. Sheila Garvey was an Ogden Clinic general surgeon (hired 1999) who provided trauma-call coverage at Ogden Regional Medical Center under a 2012 PSA between Ogden Clinic and the Hospital.
- Her Ogden Clinic employment agreement required compliance with clinic performance standards and the hospital call schedule and permitted termination for cause (including failure to meet call-schedule requirements) or without cause on 90 days' notice.
- From 2018–2020 the Hospital received multiple complaints about Garvey's conduct, placed her on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), and in January 2021 told Ogden Clinic it would not allow Garvey to participate in the trauma call rotation going forward.
- Ogden Clinic terminated Garvey effective February 18, 2021 for cause, citing her inability to meet call-schedule requirements after the Hospital barred her from the rotation; Garvey resigned the same day in lieu of discharge.
- Garvey sued both entities asserting breach of contract (employment agreement, PSA, and hospital policies), breach of the implied covenant, defamation/libel, tortious interference, and sex- and age-based discrimination (Title VII and ADEA).
- The court granted summary judgment to both defendants on all claims, finding no genuine dispute of material fact and that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of employment contract (Ogden Clinic) | Garvey: termination lacked valid cause and 90-day notice was required | Ogden Clinic: Hospital barred Garvey from trauma rotation so she could not meet call-schedule term, which is a material breach and constitutes cause | Court: Ogden Clinic had valid cause; no breach by Ogden Clinic; summary judgment for Ogden Clinic |
| Breach of PSA / contract (Hospital) | Garvey: she is a party or third-party beneficiary of PSA and Hospital unlawfully barred her from call | Hospital: PSA is between Hospital and Ogden Clinic; Garvey is not a party or beneficiary; no contractual right to call-rotation participation | Court: Garvey not a party or beneficiary; no standing on PSA; no breach of hospital policies shown; summary judgment for Hospital |
| Breach of implied covenant (Ogden Clinic & Hospital) | Garvey: defendants acted in bad faith (failed to investigate, enforced PSA contrary to purpose, defamed her) | Defendants: implied duties cannot override express contract terms; no contractual duty to investigate or to contest Hospital decision; Garvey not party to PSA | Court: Claims duplicative or unsupported by contract language; no triable issue; summary judgment for both defendants |
| Defamation / libel (both defendants) | Garvey: defendants provided disparaging statements to other hospitals causing credentialing/offer withdrawals | Defendants: releases/authorizations permit disclosure; communications were privileged or were not defamatory; Garvey points to no specific false statements | Court: Garvey failed to identify specific defamatory statements by either defendant; many disclosures were authorized (eg, forever letter); summary judgment for both defendants |
| Tortious interference (both defendants) | Garvey: defendants gave false/disparaging information to other hospitals and Hospital interfered with Ogden Clinic contract | Defendants: no evidence of improper means (e.g., defamation) and no actionable interference with Ogden Clinic | Court: Tortious interference fails for lack of improper means and because underlying contract claims fail; summary judgment for defendants |
| Discrimination—Hospital (Title VII / ADEA) | Garvey: Hospital was also her employer via the PSA and medical-staff control | Hospital: Garvey was employed by Ogden Clinic, not Hospital; not an employee under hybrid or joint-employer tests | Court: Garvey failed to show Hospital employment under hybrid or joint-employer tests; summary judgment for Hospital |
| Discrimination—Ogden Clinic (Title VII / ADEA) | Garvey: adverse action and replacement by younger male permit an inference of sex/age discrimination; Ogden Clinic's reasons were pretextual | Ogden Clinic: legitimate nondiscriminatory reason—breach of employment agreement (call-schedule inability); no evidence of pretext | Court: Garvey established prima facie case but failed to show pretext; Ogden Clinic's reason was credible; summary judgment for Ogden Clinic |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Knitter v. Corvias Military Living, LLC, 758 F.3d 1214 (joint-employer analysis; lack of direct firing authority undermines employer status)
- Adams v. C3 Pipeline Constr. Inc., 30 F.4th 943 (factors for joint-employer determination)
- Oestman v. National Farmers Union Ins. Co., 958 F.2d 303 (hybrid test: control and economic realities inquiry)
- Bair v. Axiom Design, LLC, 20 P.3d 388 (Utah law on breach of contract elements)
- Eggett v. Wasatch Energy Corp., 94 P.3d 193 (Utah law on implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing)
- Oman v. Davis Sch. Dist., 194 P.3d 956 (Utah defamation elements)
- Lambertsen v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 79 F.3d 1024 (hybrid-test totality-of-circumstances approach)