Michael Simpson v. Beaver Dam Community Hospitals
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3830
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Simpson, a Black physician, was offered employment by Beaver Dam Community Hospital (BDCH) contingent on obtaining medical staff membership and clinical privileges; he applied in April 2010.
- BDCH’s credentialing process: Credentials Committee (physician voting members) reviews applications, recommends to Medical Executive Committee, which recommends to Board; committee raised concerns and sought more information about Simpson’s licensing (oral exam requirement), employment/education gaps, two uninsured malpractice claims, and a prior academic probation.
- After a disputed on-site interaction over a $20,000 sign-on bonus, BDCH physicians received a negative reference about Simpson’s behavior; Eric Miller warned Simpson that the Credentials Committee had serious concerns and that a denial would be reported to the NPDB; Simpson withdrew his application.
- The Credentials Committee closed the application without a vote; Medical Executive Committee and Board never acted on it.
- Simpson sued under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 alleging race discrimination; the district court granted summary judgment for BDCH, and Simpson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Simpson suffered an adverse employment action | Withdrew under compulsion after a warning that denial would be reported => materially adverse | BDCH argued withdrawal mooted claim or not a cognizable adverse action | Court: Withdrawal was compelled by employer’s heads-up; constitutes materially adverse action for prima facie case |
| Whether there is direct evidence of racial discrimination | Eric Miller’s comments (“bad actor,” “best behavior,” “better fit”) and BDCH hiring white physicians show discriminatory intent | Comments were race-neutral and BDCH’s comparisons do not directly show race-based motivation | Court: Comments are nonracial and speculative; no direct evidence of racial animus |
| Whether BDCH’s stated reasons were pretextual (indirect/McDonnell Douglas) | Simpson: He met objective qualifications; BDCH’s explanations mask racial motive | BDCH: Credible, nondiscriminatory reasons — licensing oral exam, academic probation, uninsured malpractice claims, negative reference, and disruptive conduct | Court: BDCH offered honest, plausible reasons; Simpson failed to rebut underlying facts or show the Committee’s beliefs were dishonest; no pretext shown |
| Whether BDCH can be liable under a "cat’s paw" theory (biased influence by non-decisionmaker) | Kimberly Miller influenced credentialers with discriminatory motive | No evidence Kimberly Miller acted from racial animus or falsified reports; decisionmakers honestly held concerns | Court: No evidence of discriminatory animus by non-decisionmaker; cat’s paw theory fails |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for indirect proof of discrimination)
- Tank v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 758 F.3d 800 (7th Cir. 2014) (direct and circumstantial evidence standards)
- Wallace v. SMC Pneumatics, Inc., 103 F.3d 1394 (7th Cir. 1997) (no special summary judgment rule for discrimination cases)
- Abrams v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 764 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2014) (context where “better fit” supported inference of discrimination)
- Patrick v. Ridge, 394 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 2004) (“not sufficiently suited” / “fit in” can be non-specific reason insufficient to meet employer’s burden)
- Majors v. Gen. Elec. Co., 714 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2013) (no special summary judgment standard despite subjective intent issues)