ILNews

Circuit Court finds no age discrimination

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A doctor whose job was terminated as part of hospital restructuring didn't provide enough evidence to show he was let go based on his age, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today.

In Laverne Tubergen v. St. Vincent Hospital and Health Care Center, Inc., No. 06-4304, Dr. Tubergen filed a discrimination complaint against St. Vincent under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. In an effort to streamline its operations and become more efficient, the hospital hired James Houser as its chief operating officer. Before restructuring, St. Vincent had a "service line" for each of the nine medical specialties it provided, and each service line was run by a medical director, who was a physician, and an executive director that was a nurse.

Tubergen - a 65-year-old ear, nose, and throat doctor - served as a medical director. He had a two-year contract for part-time employment with the hospital that could be terminated by either party after 90 days written notice.

Houser determined the service-line structure was an inefficient way to run the hospital and abolished the system. The structure was replaced with a similar dual-leadership role that spread across several clinical specialties. More than 300 positions were eliminated as a result, including Tubergen's job. Houser met with Tubergen to tell him his job was eliminated as a result of the cutbacks and that he was welcome to apply for any of the newly created positions. Tubergen never applied for any positions because he believed the hospital would not take him seriously.

A co-worker told Tubergen that she had been told by another co-worker that Houser had commented he was "getting rid of the old guard." Tubergen took that statement to mean the older employees at the hospital, even though Houser made the comment in regards to the children's hospital personnel. Tubergen filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in late 2003 and filed suit in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana in 2004. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital.

The 7th Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, finding Tubergen provided insufficient evidence to back his age discrimination claim. Tubergen argued Houser's alleged comments about "the old guard" could give rise to a reasonable inference of age discrimination. The record showed the co-worker who overheard the comment noted it was in reference to the children's hospital, where Tubergen did not work. Also, it is possible to not take the reference of "the old guard" to literally mean "old" people, and it's more likely in line with getting rid of the previous structure, not individuals, as Houser explained he meant it in his deposition, wrote Judge Joel Flaum.

The record showed Tubergen was considered for other positions; however, he was not a qualified candidate. Tubergen also made no effort to apply for other jobs within the hospital, wrote Judge Flaum.

In addition, those who remained with the hospital after the restructuring varied in age, and the ages of the more than 300 people whose positions were eliminated also varied.

"Overall, the record reflects that Tubergen cannot employ the direct method to make a case for age discrimination," wrote Judge Flaum, noting Tubergen could also try to pursue his claim with the indirect method.

However, his claim would also fail the method's four-prong test, which requires evidence that other similarly situated employees who were not members of Tubergen's protected class or were substantially younger were treated more favorably. The hospital provided both its younger and older employees the same placement opportunities after the restructuring, he wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT