Khalil v. UTH McGovern Medical School
4:17-cv-01954
S.D. Tex.Oct 30, 2017Background
- Dr. Samia Khalil, a pediatric anesthesiologist and UTH clinical professor, sued Memorial Hermann and UTH alleging age discrimination, retaliation, and Title VII claims; she later dismissed claims against UTH and abandoned retaliation and Title VII claims at a hearing.
- Disputed events: peer review in 2015, administrative leave at UTH, required participation in PACE/KSTAR, denial of grievance and appeal at UTH, and Memorial Hermann’s decision to table her reappointment and allow her credentials to expire on January 31, 2016.
- Khalil filed an EEOC/Texas Workforce Commission charge and received a Texas right-to-sue letter on December 30, 2016; she filed this federal suit on May 5, 2017.
- Memorial Hermann moved under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to dismiss Khalil’s state-law discrimination claims and moved for judgment on the pleadings (converted to summary judgment) on other grounds.
- The court granted TCPA dismissal of Khalil’s state-law discrimination claims with prejudice (finding TCPA and Texas medical peer-review immunity applicable and § 21.254 limitations bar), denied TCPA dismissal as to federal claims, and converted the Rule 12(c) motion to summary judgment limited to remaining federal claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TCPA applies in federal court to Khalil's state-law discrimination claims | TCPA is procedural under Erie and conflicts with Federal Rules; alternatively, discrimination claims are excluded from TCPA | TCPA is substantive and applies; defendant seeks dismissal of state-law claims under TCPA | TCPA applies to these state-law claims in federal court for purposes of the motion; Memorial Hermann met the TCPA threshold and dismissal granted as to state claims |
| Whether Khalil pleaded clear and specific evidence of prima facie age discrimination under TCPA | Khalil contends she showed adverse action, qualifications, protected age, and replacement by younger doctors | Memorial Hermann contends its actions were non‑discriminatory (credentials expired for patient-safety reasons) and not an employment termination | Court assumed employment relationship for purposes of TCPA analysis but found Khalil failed to show clear and specific prima facie evidence of age discrimination |
| Whether Memorial Hermann has valid defenses barring state-law claims (immunity / limitations) | Khalil argues prior state suit tolled limitations and that peer-review immunity does not bar her claims | Memorial Hermann asserts Texas medical peer-review immunity and § 21.254 60-day limitations bar (she filed this suit after 60 days) | Court held peer-review immunity applies to state claims and plaintiff failed to timely file within 60 days; both provide alternative bases for dismissal |
| Whether federal discrimination claims should be dismissed under TCPA | Khalil withdrew federal retaliation and Title VII claims; she maintains federal ADEA claims | Memorial Hermann clarified it sought dismissal only of state-law claims under TCPA and converted 12(c) to summary judgment on federal claims | Court denied TCPA dismissal of federal claims; ordered Memorial Hermann to file supplemental summary-judgment motion limited to federal claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuba v. Pylant, 814 F.3d 701 (5th Cir. 2016) (discusses TCPA burden-shifting and application in federal court)
- Henry v. Lake Charles American Press, 566 F.3d 164 (5th Cir. 2009) (permitting anti-SLAPP–style dismissal motions in federal court)
- Culbertson v. Lykos, 790 F.3d 608 (5th Cir. 2015) (discusses state anti-SLAPP statutes and federal court application)
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (defines "clear and specific evidence" standard under TCPA)
- Patel v. Midland Memorial Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 298 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2002) (recognizes patient-safety as legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for hospital action)