A hospital lawfully terminated an employee for improperly accessing a co-worker’s lab results and refusing to admit to doing so, a federal district court in Mississippi has found in Cosby v. Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC D/B/A River Region Medical Center, et al., No. 5:11cv159-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss. May 16, 2013), rejecting the former employee’s claim of discrimination.  

The hospital found that six employees had accessed a co-worker’s medical record without a valid reason, in violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”).  Four of the employees who admitted doing so were disciplined, but not discharged, while the plaintiff and the remaining employee, who both denied accessing the medical record, were dismissed.  The plaintiff sued, alleging that her termination constituted race and age discrimination, and was in retaliation for exercising her right to complain about unlawful actions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the “ADEA”) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”).  She also alleged various state law claims.

The court dismissed the race and age discrimination claims.  It concluded that the plaintiff’s termination for violating HIPAA and refusing to admit doing so was legitimate and nondiscriminatory.  The court also found the plaintiff failed to show that this was a pretext for the alleged discrimination, noting the hospital retained employees who were older than the plaintiff and who had admitted their offense, terminated her co-worker who was of a different race for the same offense, and replaced the plaintiff with a person of the same race and approximate age.  The court also found that the lab results to which the plaintiff had access were protected under HIPAA, rejecting her efforts to distinguish herself from the other employees who were disciplined and could access broader health information.  At most, the court concluded, this might suggest an error in terminating her, but it was insufficient to defeat the hospital’s summary judgment motion.  It was not the court’s province to second guess an employer’s non-discriminatory business decision.

The court also dismissed the various retaliation claims because the plaintiff failed to show she referenced race in any complaint to the hospital before her termination, provided no evidence of retaliation under the ADEA, and could not show a causal link between her termination and the alleged protected activity under the FMLA.  All of the plaintiff’s state court claims were dismissed also.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Michael R. Bertoncini Michael R. Bertoncini

Michael R. Bertoncini is a principal in the Boston, Massachusetts, office of Jackson Lewis. He is a member of the Healthcare industry group and a member of the Higher Education group.

With a background as a former Deputy General Counsel, Michael understands first-hand…

Michael R. Bertoncini is a principal in the Boston, Massachusetts, office of Jackson Lewis. He is a member of the Healthcare industry group and a member of the Higher Education group.

With a background as a former Deputy General Counsel, Michael understands first-hand the competing demands and unique challenges faced by in-house counsel. Before joining Jackson Lewis, he was responsible for all labor and employment law matters for the largest fully integrated community care hospital system in New England. Michael provides timely, practical advice that helps clients achieve their strategic goals while ensuring compliance with legal obligations.

With deep experience in a broad range of industries, Michael has a keen interest in the healthcare, higher education, museum, and arts & music sectors. He is dedicated to supporting clients in these areas, leveraging his extensive experience to address the specific challenges faced by institutions and organizations in these fields.

Michael regularly partners with clients to establish positive employee relations. In labor relations matters, he negotiates collective bargaining agreements on behalf of organized clients, represents clients in labor arbitrations and National Labor Relations Board proceedings, and counsels clients with respect to rights and obligations under collective bargaining agreements and applicable labor and employment laws. He also has extensive experience in advising organizations responding to corporate campaigns and negotiating neutrality agreements.

Michael’s privacy and data security practice focuses on advising clients on complying with HIPAA and other state and federal privacy and data security laws. He reviews and develops policies and procedures, written information security plans and integrated compliance programs to ensure his clients meet their obligations under privacy and data security laws. Michael represents clients in investigations of alleged data breaches and advises them on reporting obligations.. He also conducts workplace training programs on HIPAA compliance and related privacy and data security topics.