Mikele Boyle v. Penn Dental Medicine
689 F. App'x 140
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Dr. Mikele L. Boyle, a 61‑year‑old dentist, worked at Penn Dental (University of Pennsylvania) from 1999–2013 and was suspended in 2013 after colleagues raised quality concerns.
- Clinical Director Kauffman audited Boyle’s work and recommended convening the Quality Committee; Boyle refused to resign and was suspended with pay pending review.
- A six‑member Quality Committee (four Penn dentists, the Assistant Dean, and an external chair) reviewed 40–60 charts, discussed nine cases, and unanimously found Boyle’s work below Penn Dental’s standard; it recommended a six‑month probation initially.
- Additional complaints during Boyle’s suspension prompted an expanded review; the Committee again unanimously found deficiencies in clinical planning, execution, and documentation; Dean Kinane fired Boyle in November 2013.
- Boyle sued under the ADEA and PHRA for age discrimination and under ERISA §510 for interference with pension benefits; the District Court granted summary judgment for Penn Dental, and Boyle appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination violated ADEA/PHRA (age discrimination) | Boyle argues circumstantial evidence (different treatment of a younger dentist, other older departures, her own positive patient feedback) shows pretext and age motivation | Penn Dental contends it terminated Boyle for nondiscriminatory, documented deficiencies in clinical performance based on unanimous Committee findings | Affirmed for defendant: plaintiff failed to show direct evidence or sufficient circumstantial evidence of pretext or age‑based motive |
| Whether comparator evidence shows disparate treatment | Boyle points to a younger dentist who was given a performance plan before termination and other allegedly pushed‑out older dentists | Penn Dental argues the cited younger dentist was not similarly situated (issues concerned productivity, not clinical quality) and other claims are hearsay or lack personal knowledge | Court held comparators were not similarly situated or supported; comparator evidence insufficient |
| Whether ERISA §510 claim (interference with retirement benefits) survives | Boyle contends ERISA claim relies on same alleged pretext evidence as her ADEA claim | Penn Dental argues no specific intent to interfere was shown and identified tuition benefits cited by Boyle are not ERISA‑governed; no vested ERISA benefits shown | Affirmed for defendant: ERISA claim fails (no specific intent shown; benefits not shown to be ERISA‑covered or to have vested) |
| Evidentiary sufficiency at summary judgment | Boyle relies on testimony, one supportive colleague affidavit, and patient letters to create genuine dispute | Penn Dental relies on Committee reports, multiple reporting dentists, and argues inadmissible hearsay cannot defeat summary judgment | Court held plaintiff’s evidence insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact; employer’s honest belief in reasons controls pretext inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. UPMC Children’s Hosp. of Pittsburgh, 808 F.3d 638 (3d Cir. 2015) (summary judgment standard in employment ADEA claims)
- Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2014) (view facts in light most favorable to non‑moving party on summary judgment)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) (standards for showing pretext or mixed motive at summary judgment)
- Simpson v. Kay Jewelers, 142 F.3d 639 (3d Cir. 1998) (requirement that comparators be similarly situated)
- Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684 (3d Cir. 2009) (inadmissible hearsay cannot defeat summary judgment)
- Billet v. CIGNA Corp., 940 F.2d 812 (3d Cir. 1991) (disagreement with employer’s evaluation does not prove pretext)
- Capps v. Mondelez Glob., LLC, 847 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2017) (courts should not act as super‑personnel departments reviewing business decisions)
- McCoy v. WGN Continental Broad. Co., 957 F.2d 368 (7th Cir. 1992) (employer’s honest belief, not correctness, controls pretext analysis)
- Gavalik v. Continental Can Co., 812 F.2d 834 (3d Cir. 1987) (ERISA §510 prohibits actions to interfere with attainment of plan rights)
- Dewitt v. Penn‑Del Directory Corp., 106 F.3d 514 (3d Cir. 1997) (ERISA §510 requires specific intent to violate ERISA)