Management Job Eliminated: Court Finds No Gender Discrimination By Hospital

Legal Eagle Eye Newsletter for the Nursing Profession

December 1995

   Quick Summary: While she was out on approved family leave for the birth of her adopted child, the budget manager’s position was eliminated as part of a consolidation and restructuring occasioned by a hospital merger.

   She was offered a downgraded, non-management position, which was given to another female employee when she refused it.

   A male employee, the director of treasury, also saw his comparable management position eliminated at the same time.

   To prove gender discrimination in the context of a structural reorganization, an employee must prove:

1. She belongs to a legally-protected group, e.g. women generally, and/or women exercising the right to take maternity leave;

2. She was qualified for her job;

3. She was terminated; and

4. The circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination.

The hospital conceded the first three elements were true. The employee failed to establish the fourth element, which was a critical flaw in her case.  U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NEW YORK, 1995.

   A female former hospital employee filed suit against the hospital in Federal District Court in New York, after her management position was eliminated while she was away on approved maternity leave. The court dismissed the suit.

   The court stated that it could not discern an inference of discriminatory intent from the hospital’s conduct. According to the court, circumstances contributing to a permissible inference of discriminatory intent may include the employer filling the position, after the discharge of a member of a protected group, with an individual who is not a member of the protected group, or derogatory comments about members of the protected group, or more favorable treatment, in general, of employees not in the protected group. If the employer were to transfer the employee’s responsibilities to another person, not in the protected group, after eliminating the employee’s position, or if the employee failed to offer the employee another position for which she is qualified, if available, there could also be an inference of discriminatory intent on the employer’s part.

   In this case, the one person who kept her management position was a woman, while the plaintiff who filed the lawsuit in this case and a male co-worker saw theirs eliminated. The downgraded position to which the plaintiff’s duties were reassigned was, in fact, offered to the plaintiff and refused, and was eventually filled by a woman.

   The court stated that it is up to an employee or former employee raising charges of discrimination to bring forth the evidence she will rely upon to show a discriminatory attitude on the part of the employer. The legal rules of evidence require the court to rule for the defendant and dismiss the case, if the party alleging discrimination does not bring forth sufficient evidence to convince the court. Pearlstein vs. Hospital, 886 F. Supp. 260 (E.D.N.Y., 1995).