Melvin Chang v. Straub Clinic & Hospital
670 F. App'x 591
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Melvin Chang, M.D., sued Straub Clinic and Hospital alleging retaliation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) after he was terminated; Straub moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Straub and denied Chang’s motion for reconsideration; Chang appealed.
- Chang argued his termination was retaliatory because he had engaged in advocacy he says was based on a belief Straub discriminated.
- The person who fired Chang was Randy Yates; there was no evidence Yates knew Chang’s advocacy was based on alleged discrimination or that employees who knew of Chang’s advocacy participated in the termination decision.
- Chang relied on temporal proximity and more recent communications as evidence of causation, and alleged a pattern of antagonism with Straub’s CEO; the court found the three-year gap too long and the communications did not allege discrimination.
- Chang did not respond to Straub’s argument that his IIED claim was barred by Hawaii’s workers’ compensation statute, leading the court to find the issue waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chang made a prima facie retaliation showing (causation) | Chang: his advocacy and later communications show protected activity leading to retaliation | Straub: decisionmaker (Yates) did not know of any protected activity; no link to termination | Court: No prima facie showing; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether temporal proximity supports causation | Chang: events close enough to infer causation | Straub: multi-year gap undermines inference | Court: Three-plus year gap too long; proximity fails to establish causation |
| Whether Chang’s pre-termination communications were protected activity | Chang: email to Vara and call with Cazinha were protected | Straub: those communications did not mention discrimination | Court: Communications contained no discrimination allegation; not protected activity |
| Whether IIED claim is barred by workers’ compensation statute | Chang: (did not contest below) | Straub: IIED claim barred by Hawaii workers’ comp exclusivity | Court: Chang waived the argument by failing to respond; IIED claim barred/waived |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying reconsideration | Chang: sought reconsideration (no newly discovered evidence or law change asserted) | Straub: denial proper—no basis for reconsideration | Court: No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitman v. Mineta, 541 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 2008) (summary judgment review is de novo)
- Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1994) (elements of retaliation analysis)
- Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1982) (inference of causation requires decisionmaker’s knowledge of protected activity)
- Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2006) (multi-month gap can be too long to infer causation)
- Porter v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 419 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2004) (pattern of antagonism standard)
- Abogados v. AT&T, Inc., 223 F.3d 932 (9th Cir. 2000) (failure to respond to an argument waives the issue)
- Baccei v. United States, 632 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2011) (standards for considering arguments despite waiver)
- Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review for reconsideration motions)