Pooja Khungar v. Access Community Health Networ
985 F.3d 565
7th Cir.2021Background
- Dr. Pooja Khungar was a pediatrician at Access Community Health Network (Kedzie clinic) from July 2014 until her November–December 2016 separation.
- Prior disciplinary history included an August 2015 "final warning" for a HIPAA violation and multiple patient- and staff-originated complaints about clinical care, bedside manner, and workplace conduct in 2016.
- In September–November 2016 Chief Medical Officer Dr. Jairo Mejia compiled complaints and recommended triggering Khungar’s contract's 90‑day notice; HR approved and Access served notice on November 21, 2016.
- Khungar filed an EEOC charge on November 30, 2016 alleging discrimination; on December 10 she made a remark about loss/damage to a vaccine document that a coworker reported as a threat.
- HR Director Riley investigated December 14, 2016, concluded Riley reasonably believed a threatening statement had been made, and terminated Khungar on the spot; Khungar amended her EEOC charge to add retaliation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Access on Title VII discrimination and retaliation; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was discriminatory (did Khungar meet employer's legitimate expectations / was termination because of race, national origin, or religion?) | Khungar says she met expectations and was fired for discriminatory reasons tied to her Indian origin, race, or religion. | Access points to HIPAA violation, numerous documented patient/staff complaints, and Mejia’s independent termination recommendation—nondiscriminatory reasons. | Court: Evidence as a whole shows poor performance and safety concerns; nondiscriminatory, nonpretextual reasons exist. Summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether plaintiff needed or proved a valid similarly situated comparator / replacement evidence | Khungar contends comparator proof is unnecessary for a single termination theory (citing Yarbrough) or otherwise had better-treated comparators. | Access: no proper comparators; decisionmakers acted for performance reasons. | Court: New comparator theory forfeited on appeal; plaintiff produced no admissible evidence of replacement or proper comparators—prima facie fails. |
| Whether employer's stated immediate reason (threatening remark) was pretextual (relying on IDES unemployment findings) | Khungar relies on Illinois unemployment decisions finding no threatening statement to show pretext. | Access: IDES decisions are inadmissible/hearsay and have no preclusive effect; decisionmaker reasonably believed she was threatened. | Court: IDES findings cannot create a genuine issue; Riley’s belief from coworker reports sufficed to support termination. |
| Whether termination was retaliatory (causal link to complaints/EEOC filing) | Khungar argues suspicious timing—termination soon after her November complaints and EEOC filing—supports retaliation. | Access: decisionmaker Riley was unaware of the EEOC charge on Dec. 14; termination was prompted by the December remark and earlier documented performance issues. | Court: Timing + lack of decisionmaker knowledge insufficient to show causation; summary judgment for Access on retaliation affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. Werner Enters., Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (all evidence evaluated "as a whole"; guidance on direct/indirect evidence)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; reasonable jury inquiry)
- Simmons v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 289 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2002) (when performance is central, analyze performance issue directly)
- Gustovich v. AT&T Commc'ns, Inc., 972 F.2d 845 (7th Cir. 1992) (employer's honest description of reasons controls if not pretextual)
- Luckie v. Ameritech Corp., 389 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2004) (complaints admissible to show decisionmaker's state of mind)
- Casna v. City of Loves Park, 574 F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2009) ("suspicious timing" rarely alone proves retaliation)
- Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2012) (timing limits for inferring retaliation causation)
- Daugherty v. Wabash Ctr., Inc., 577 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2009) (courts do not prescribe employer discipline procedures; focus on nondiscrimination)