Katherine Liu v. Cook County, Illinois
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4746
7th Cir.2016Background
- Dr. Katherine Liu, an Asian general surgeon at Stroger Hospital, lost surgical privileges and was denied reappointment in 2008 after years of dispute over non-operative management of appendicitis.
- Three defendants—Dr. Keen (Chair of Surgery), Dr. Madura (Chair of SOC), and Dr. Donahue (Chief of General Surgery)—had authority over patient-care decisions and disciplinary actions.
- SOC and related committees repeatedly reviewed Liu’s appendicitis cases (I.G., J.E., F.G., Sandoval) and issued findings alleging deficient care and non-compliance with directives to operate.
- Liu faced formal reprimands, a two-year process of suspension and revision of privileges, and eventual non-reappointment; by 2010 she was terminated following a disciplinary process involving Peer Review, EMS, and a hearing committee.
- Liu alleged discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin, and retaliation; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, focusing on pretext and whether the stated reasons were honestly held.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Liu can show pretext to defeat summary judgment on discrimination claims | Liu contends defendants’ reasons were pretextual | Defendants’ reasons were honestly held and supported by record | No genuine pretext; reasons credible and sincere |
| Whether Liu can show pretext to defeat summary judgment on retaliation claims | Liu asserts retaliatory motive masked by non-operative treatment stance | Actions stem from medical judgment, not retaliation | No genuine pretext; retaliation claims fail |
| Whether Liu established a hostile work environment based on protected class | Harassment evidenced by reprimands and remarks tied to protected status | Evidence insufficient to link harassment to protected class | Insufficient evidence of class-based harassment; claim failed |
Key Cases Cited
- Harper v. C.R. England, Inc., 687 F.3d 297 (7th Cir. 2012) (direct/indirect proof framework and pretext analysis guidance)
- Bass v. Joliet Public School Dist. No. 86, 746 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2014) (summary judgment standards in discrimination cases; evidence of pretext needed)
- Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2012) (collapses discrimination tests into one approach for summary judgment)
- Widmar v. Sun Chemical Corp., 772 F.3d 457 (7th Cir. 2014) (pretext and sufficient evidence standards in discrimination/retaliation)
- O’Leary v. Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2011) (pretext requires honest belief in non-discriminatory reason)
- Hague v. Thompson Distribution Co., 436 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2006) (employer’s mistaken belief not enough; must be the true reason)
- Yindee v. CCH Inc., 458 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2006) (pretext analysis—poor management not itself evidence of discrimination)
- Za yas v. Rockford Memorial Hospital, 740 F.3d 1154 (7th Cir. 2014) (emails not egregious enough to justify termination; pretext requires more)