Leitgen v. Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 631
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Leitgen, a physician in the Hospital’s OB/GYN department since 1993, was a high-volume, high-earning doctor and once chair of the department.
- The Hospital pooled delivery revenue and redistributed it equally among physicians, instead of paying per-delivery to each doctor.
- Leitgen and other female physicians repeatedly complained the system disadvantaged women; no changes were made during her tenure as chair.
- Sandy became chair in 2004 and discussed alternatives but the pooling system remained in place.
- In 2006 Leitgen complained to Hospital finance officials outside the department about potential gender discrimination in pay; after that, she faced discipline for staff-patient conduct problems.
- Leitgen was terminated in November 2006 after executive committee findings of multiple complaints about her interactions with staff and patients; she resigned the day after a termination session.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leitgen engaged in protected conduct | Leitgen believed the pay system discriminated by gender | Hospital argues no protected conduct established | Leitgen’s Tiggelaar meeting was protected conduct |
| Whether protected conduct caused the termination | Complaints about pay system influenced firing | Termination based on abusive conduct regardless of pay complaints | No sufficient causation shown; timing insufficient |
| Whether timing and sequence support retaliation inference | Prolonged complaints plus post-protest timing show retaliation | Decision-makers knew of concerns long before termination; timing not causal | Suspicious timing alone insufficient to create triable issue |
| Whether other evidence supports retaliation claim | Disparate treatment evidenced by Keil incident | No evidence Hospital discriminated against Keil | Keil evidence insufficient to prove retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Tate v. Exec. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 546 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness of belief in discrimination for protected conduct)
- Fine v. Ryan Int’l Airlines, 305 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2002) (need not prove actual discrimination; reasonable belief suffices)
- Casna v. City of Loves Park, 574 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2009) (suspicious timing can create triable issue but not here)
- Leonard v. E. Ill. Univ., 606 F.3d 428 (7th Cir. 2010) (timing alone often insufficient for causation)
- Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th Cir. 2004) (timing and sequence considerations in retaliation)
- McClendon v. Indiana Sugars, Inc., 108 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 1997) (retaliation claims require causal link beyond timing)
- Turner v. Salo on, Ltd., 595 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2010) (retaliation timing considerations)
- Jones v. Res-Care, Inc., 613 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2010) (direct method retaliation framework)
- Hasan v. Foley & Lardner LLP, 552 F.3d 520 (7th Cir. 2008) (evidence of discrimination in retaliation context)
- Troupe v. May Dept Stores Co., 20 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 1994) (evidence of discriminatory conduct against others can be circumstantial support)