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. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT