King v. University Healthcare System L.C.
645 F.3d 713
| 5th Cir. | 2011

Background

  • Dr. Angela King, M.D., sued University Healthcare System, L.C. (UHS) for sex discrimination, retaliation, breach of oral contract, EPA, and LWPS; jury found no discrimination/retaliation/oral contract but did find EPA and LWPS violations with damages and penalties awarded, later appealed by both sides.
  • From 2005, King was an anesthesiologist at Tulane under a written contract expiring March 14, 2007, with base pay and a capped extra-hours component; an integration clause stated the agreement was the entire contract.
  • Katrina-era operations forced King and others to work heavy hours out of Lakeside Hospital; post-Katrina, discussions and logs indicated possible extra-pay at $150 per hour for extra hours; some actual payments occurred but were disputed as errors.
  • UHS circulated contract addenda offering a $33,000 Extension/Extra Hours Bonus; the final addendum reduced it to $32,700 and referred to it as an Extra Hours Bonus, with conditioning on execution of a second agreement that King did not sign; no completed oral contract was shown.
  • Mascia, another UHS anesthesiologist, received a $3,000 time-slips adjustment and a $30,000 bonus; UHS paid Mascia despite questions about signing the extension; trial evidence suggested bonuses were tied to contract execution rather than discretionary pay.
  • The district court entered judgments on EPA and LWPS, awarded attorney’s fees, and the parties cross-appealed; the Fifth Circuit reversed portions relating to LWPS and remanded for fee apportionment, while affirming other aspects.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Parol evidence vs. integration clause King contends oral promises to pay for extra hours exist despite integration clause. UHS argues the clause bars extrinsic modification evidence. District court acted within discretion to allow parol evidence to explore modification; no reversible error.
Discovery and Rule 408 emails King seeks exposure of emails allegedly relevant to claims outside settlement. UHS claims emails are settlement communications or privileged. District court did not abuse discretion; redactions and limited use were proper under Rule 408.
LWPS verdict and plain error LWPS damages may be supported by a separate obligation or contract addenda. No separate enforceable obligation existed; the verdict is inconsistent with record evidence. LWPS verdict reversed and judgment vacated as to that claim; no basis for a recovery under the record presented.
EPA/Title VII pay differential Dr. King was paid less than male comparator Mascia for equal work without permissible justification. Mascia is an inappropriate comparator or, if appropriate, the differential rests on permissible defenses. Verdict not manifestly erroneous; Dr. Mascia could be a valid comparator and the jury could find an EPA violation.
Attorney's fees and fee apportionment Fees should be apportioned to EPA claim; LWPS recovery is viable; district court’s calculation should reflect overlap. Fees should reflect claims and defenses; but LWPS reversal requires remand for proper apportionment. Remand for precise apportionment of fees between EPA and LWPS; Coats Rose privilege motion denied without prejudice to other rights.

Key Cases Cited

  • Meredith v. La. Fed'n of Teachers, 209 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2000) (one-witness and corroborating circumstances for oral contracts over $500)
  • Stokes v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 894 F.2d 764 (5th Cir. 1990) (parol evidence and integration clause limitations)
  • Omnitech Int'l, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 11 F.3d 1316 (5th Cir. 1994) (integration clause not per se bar to parol evidence)
  • Condrey v. SunTrust Bank of Ga., 429 F.3d 556 (5th Cir. 2005) (enforcing integration clauses under certain circumstances)
  • Bass v. Coupel, 671 So.2d 344 (La. Ct. App. 1995) (parol evidence evaluation and related considerations)
  • Plemer v. Parsons-Gilbane, 713 F.2d 1127 (5th Cir. 1983) (burdens in EPA/Title VII claims and defense structure)
  • Siler-Khodr v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr. San Antonio, 261 F.3d 542 (5th Cir. 2001) (burden shifting under EPA and comparative reasoning)
  • Lowe v. Southmark Corp., 998 F.2d 335 (5th Cir. 1993) (good faith defense to liquidated damages under EPA)
  • Adames v. Perez, 331 F.3d 508 (5th Cir. 2003) (manifest miscarriage of justice standard for plain error review)
  • Willard v. John Hayward, 577 F.2d 1009 (5th Cir. 1978) (reconciliation of inconsistent special verdicts)
  • Ham Marine, Inc. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 72 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 1995) (credibility and jury evaluation in contract cases)
  • Fox v. Vice, U.S. (2011) (fee-shifting and allocation in Civil Rights cases (U.S. Supreme Court))
  • Bass v. Coupel, 671 So.2d 344 (La. Ct. App. 1995) (parol evidence and integration clause in Louisiana context)
  • Hodges, Grant & Kaufmann v. United States, 768 F.2d 719 (5th Cir. 1985) (attorney-client privilege scope and purpose)
Read the full case