Sean Kelly v. The University of Vermont Medical Center
2022 VT 26
| Vt. | 2022Background
- UVMMC offers a one-year Sleep Medicine fellowship (July 1–June 30); plaintiff was selected for 2017–18 and signed the fellowship contract outlining salary, leave, and that an extension "may" be required after extended leave.
- Plaintiff has an adrenal deficiency, missed significant time before April 2018, and received a written improvement plan after program concerns about falling behind.
- In April–May 2018 plaintiff suffered a stroke and attempted suicide, was hospitalized, missed about six additional weeks, and was cleared to return June 1; UVMMC concluded he needed six more months of training but could not provide that extension and paid his remaining salary.
- Plaintiff filed a grievance (denied) and sued alleging FEPA discrimination and failure-to-accommodate, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and defamation; the trial court granted summary judgment to UVMMC on all claims.
- On appeal the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed de novo and affirmed: it treated the non-extension as an academic decision (not an adverse employment action), rejected plaintiff's accommodation arguments (briefing inadequate), and held breach damages too speculative.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-extension of fellowship is an adverse employment action (FEPA discrimination) | Non-extension/termination after medical leave and an earlier offered extension amounted to an adverse employment action | Decision was academic (extension related only to earning certificate), plaintiff received all contractual economic benefits | Non-extension was not an adverse employment action; it was an academic decision and not actionable under FEPA |
| Whether academic decisions get deference or are subject to FEPA | Extension denial was discriminatory despite academic context | Academic institutions get deference for academic/performance judgments; courts should not substitute their judgment | Court applied academic deference; academic decisions shielded absent evidence of discrimination, which was not shown |
| Failure-to-accommodate under FEPA | Six-month extension was a reasonable accommodation; contract contemplated extensions and UVMMC had granted extensions before | No reasonable accommodation available given program limits; plaintiff’s briefing insufficient to show preserved, triable claim | Plaintiff’s appellate briefing inadequate; court declined to reach merits and affirmed summary judgment on this claim |
| Breach of contract and damages | Contract provisions and ACGME rules required no ‘negative consequences’ from medical leave; plaintiff would have become a higher‑paid sleep-medicine physician if extended | Contract did not guarantee an extension; plaintiff received contractual pay; future earnings claim speculative | Breach claim failed for lack of provable damages—prospective earnings stream was too speculative to survive summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallipo v. City of Rutland, 882 A.2d 1177 (discussing summary-judgment standard and FEPA/Title VII burdens)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for prima facie discrimination and burdens of proof)
- Galabya v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 202 F.3d 636 (definition of "adverse employment action")
- Crady v. Liberty Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co., 993 F.2d 132 (examples of materially adverse employment actions)
- Knapik v. Mary Hitchcock Mem'l Hosp., 90 F. Supp. 3d 292 (treating medical training positions as hybrid academic/employment relationships)
- Leibowitz v. Cornell Univ., 584 F.3d 487 (non-renewal context for adverse-action analysis in academic settings)
- Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (deference to academic judgments about student performance)
- Bhatt v. Univ. of Vt., 958 A.2d 637 (academic-deference principle in Vermont decisions)
- Herrera v. Union No. 39 Sch. Dist., 917 A.2d 923 (property-interest/economic-benefits analysis relevant to non-renewal/paid-contract contexts)