 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hanley v. Doctors Hospital of Shreveport6/6/2002
e hospital for its negligence in allowing the hostile work environment. She may not have even understood at the time that she had a claim against the hospital for her co-worker's actions. Thus, the inference that the hospital retaliated after the co-workers were no longer working together is rather weak. Most parties avoid the "sleeping dog."
More significantly, the hospital met its burden of showing that Hanley was discharged for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. Regardless of the comparison that was made concerning the hospital's disciplinary actions towards other nurses that made medical errors, Hanley's medical errors were serious mistakes. Those mistakes, coupled with her overall employment record before and after her report of Paxton's conduct, gave the hospital real cause to discharge her. In the absence of her standing as a person who had asserted her Title VII protections, the fact that the hospital discriminated in its employment decisions concerning her and other nurses was irrelevant since our employment law does not otherwise involve itself with such unfair and subjective treatment. See, Stevenson v. Lavalco, Inc., 28,020 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2/25/96), 669 So.2d 608. Hanley was an at-will employee who could be dismissed for no reason or unfairly in relation to others. The fact that the evidence of the other discipline against nurses was relevant to show that retaliation in this Title VII setting may have in part prompted the hospital's action does not diminish the seriousness of Hanley's medical mistakes.
I agree with the majority that the jury could decide this rather close issue of whether a retaliatory motive for Hanley's discharge existed. However, with the hospital's evidence of Hanley's medical malpractice, I do not find that the malice or reckless indifference standard under Kolstad was proven. As the Kolstad ruling stated:
There will be circumstances where intentional discrimination does not give rise to punitive damages liability under this standard. In some instances, the employer may simply be unaware of the relevant federal prohibition. There will be cases, moreover, in which the employer discriminates with the distinct belief that its discrimination is lawful. The underlying theory of discrimination may be novel or otherwise poorly recognized, . . . Id. at 536-537.
I find it much more likely that the negligent hospital staff was still unaware of the full extent of Hanley's federally protected rights and made the decision to discharge her, believing that her serious mistakes justified their decision, regardless of whether they were also motivated in part by her complaint of Paxton's harassment. I do not find sufficient evidence of malice or reckless disregard for her rights and would reverse the award of punitive damages.
|