Hill vs. Dept of Vet Affairs, (5th Cir. 2009)
Linked as:
Text
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 12, 2009
No. 08-60532 Charles R. Fulbruge III
Summary Calendar Clerk
JAMES HILL, D.O.
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, GORDON H MANSFIELD,
ACTING SECRETARY
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:06-CV-243
Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:* Dr. James Hill ("Hill"), formerly employed at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Biloxi, Mississippi (the "Hospital"), brought this age discrimination action against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (the "Secretary"). Hill appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary on his disparate treatment claim, and the dismissal of his hostile work environment claim. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Hill was born in 1935. From 1994 to 2004, he was employed by the Hospital as a licensed osteopath. Every two years, each physician's privileges to practice at the Hospital came up for renewal; Hill's privileges were scheduled to be renewed in March 2004. However, four months earlier, the Hospital had launched an extensive peer review program designed to evaluate the quality of patient care provided by each member of the medical staff. Dr. C. Diane Knight, Hill's direct supervisor, informed Hill that the peer review program had revealed certain areas of concern regarding the quality of his patient care, including his use of potentially harmful medications. Accordingly, she told him that his privileges would be renewed for ninety days rather than the standard two years, pending further review of his patient charts.
When the ninety-day renewal of Hill's privileges expired, he was placed on involuntary paid leave pending formal review of his performance. In September 2004, Hill received a notice that his privileges were being revoked, giving him fourteen days to respond to a list of allegations regarding his patient care. He allegedly requested copies of the relevant clinical records from the Hospital but did not receive them in time to prepare an adequate response to these allegations. Eventually, Hill resigned from the Hospital before a final decision was made regarding his formal discharge. He testified that he expected to be terminated and chose to resign in order to keep his insurance benefits.
In September 2004, Hill filed administrative charges of age discrimination with the Department of Veterans Affairs (the "Department"). After a formal investigation of the charges, the Department's Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication issued a Final Agency Decision in December 2005 that found no discrimination. In March 2006, Hill commenced this civil action against the Secretary, alleging "disparate treatment" and "hostile work environment"--both based on age. The district court granted the Secretary's motion for summary judgment on Hill's disparate treatment claim.
It later dismissed Hill's hostile work environment claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Hill appeals both holdings.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the district court's grant of summary judgment on Hill's disparate treatment claim de novo. See Richardson v. Monitronics Int'l, Inc., 434 F.3d 327, 332 (5th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). "We consider the evidence in a light most favorable to [Hill], the non-movant, but [he] must point to evidence showing that there is a genuine fact issue for trial" to survive summary judgment. Richardson, 434 F.3d at 332.
We also review de novo the district court's dismissal of Hill's hostile work environment claim. See Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510, 514 (5th Cir. 2005). "All of the plaintiff's allegations must be accepted as true, and the dismissal will be affirmed only if it appears that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations." Id. at 514
Sponsored links
