Margolis v. Pub. Health Trust of Miami-Dade Cnty.

• Decision Date: 26 February 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 14–21416–CIV.
• Citation: 89 F.Supp.3d 1343
• Parties: James R. MARGOLIS, M.D., Plaintiff, v. PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI–DADE COUNTY d/b/a Jackson Health Systems, & Martha Garcia, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

89 F.Supp.3d 1343

James R. MARGOLIS, M.D., Plaintiff

v.PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI–DADE COUNTY d/b/a Jackson Health Systems, & Martha Garcia, Defendants.

Case No. 14–21416–CIV.

United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division.

Signed Feb. 26, 2015.

Filed Feb. 27, 2015.

Dana T. Chang, Spencer Hal Silverglate, Clarke Silverglate, P.A., Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.

Marlon Delano Moffett, Miami, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JOSE E. MARTINEZ, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants' Joint Motion for Final Summary Judgment [ECF No. 61]. Defendants Public Health Trust of Miami–Dade County d/b/a Jackson Health Systems (“Jackson”) and Martha Garcia (“Garcia”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move for entry of final summary judgment in their favor against Plaintiff James Margolis, M.D. (“Plaintiff”). For the reasons set forth below, this Court grants Defendants' Joint Motion for Final Summary Judgment [ECF No. 61].

I. Relevant Background

This is an action for damages based on allegations of employment discrimination brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 (“ADEA”), the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01 (“FCRA”), and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [ECF No. 18] (the “Amended Complaint”). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Jackson discriminated against him by terminating his employment as the Medical Director of the Cardiac Cath Lab (“Cath Lab”) at Jackson South Community Hospital (“Jackson South”) because of his age (69) and race (white, non-Hispanic) in violation of the ADEA, FCRA, and Title VII (Counts I, II, III, and IV). Id. Plaintiff further alleges that Garcia, the Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer of Jackson South, recommended that Jackson terminate his employment because of his race and/or national origin, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count V), and that this recommendation was “solely motivated by discriminatory animus.” Id. at ¶¶ 4, 15.

Defendant Public Health Trust is an agency of Miami–Dade County which operates the Jackson Health System. [ECF No. 62 at ¶ 1; ECF No. 74 at ¶ 1]. Jackson is composed of several facilities, including Jackson Memorial Hospital (“JMH” or “Jackson Main Campus”), Jackson North Medical Center (“Jackson North”), and Jackson South. Id. Plaintiff is a white, non-Hispanic male, born in 1943. [ECF No. 62 at ¶ 2; ECF No. 74 at ¶ 2]. On October 18, 2010, he began his employment as the Medical Director assigned to Jackson South on an unpaid, voluntary basis, with the primary duty of developing and implementing the business plan to establish a new cardiac catheterization

lab (“CCL”) at Jackson South. [ECF No. 62 at ¶ 3; ECF No. 74 at ¶ 3]. Plaintiff began working in a paid capacity effective February 7, 2011, with a starting annual salary of $500,000.00 plus benefits. [ECF No. 62 at ¶ 4; ECF No. 74 at ¶ 4]. As medical director, Plaintiff was an at-will employee at all times subject to being removed from his position at the discretion of the Vice President and Director of Jackson Medical Group/Physician Services (“JMG”), which employs physicians throughout the health system. [ECF No. 62 at ¶¶ 1, 5; ECF No. 74 at ¶¶ 1, 5]

From September 6, 2011 to December 2012, Garcia was employed as Senior Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer for Jackson South. Id. at ¶ 6. Garcia was responsible “for the ‘day-to-day operations of all services, developing new product lines and services, [and] managing the physical budget for [Jackson South].’ Making sure that [Jackson South] complied with all state and federal regulatory agencies, physician relationships, serving as a liaison ... between the doctors and the health care system.” [ECF No. 62–6 at 4 (Garcia Dep. at 11:22–12:4) ]. Plaintiff alleges that Garcia was his de facto supervisor. [ECF No. 74 at ¶ 41]. Defendants submit that from approximately March 2012 to August 2013, Gino Santorio (“Santorio”) was responsible for all JMG employed physicians throughout Jackson, including Plaintiff. [ECF No. 62 at ¶ 8] (citing ECF No. 62–7 at ¶¶ 1–2).

In approximately March of 2012, Jackson executives initiated one in a series of large-scale reductions-in-force (“RIFs”), and required Santorio to develop a plan to reduce his workforce. [ECF No. 62 at ¶ 11]. Plaintiff was aware of the 2012 RIFs, as they resulted in his having to take unpaid furlough days. Id. at ¶ 12; [ECF No. 74 at ¶ 12]. Plaintiff also acknowledged that he was being asked to take furlough days because the hospital was running out of money and they “ ‘were down to a few days of cash flow and they needed to pay less money to the people in general.’ ” [ECF No. 62 at ¶ 12] (quoting ECF No. 62–1 at 43 (Margolis Dep. at 167:24–168:2)). On April 4, 2012, Santorio sent Plaintiff a letter informing him that his position as a Medical Director was being eliminated and that he would be permanently laid off effective May 14, 2012. [ECF No. 62–8] (“April Layoff Letter”). The letter further explained that, “[o]ver the next few months the organization [would be] proceeding with management/personnel reductions, resulting in the permanent loss of approximately Nine Hundred and Twenty (920) positions.” Id. Thereafter, on May 4, 2012, Santorio sent a superseding termination letter, advising Plaintiff that his termination would become effective on June 1, 2012. [ECF No. 62–9] (“May Layoff Letter”). The May Layoff Letter also reiterated the point that the organization would be proceeding with management/personnel reductions, resulting “in the permanent loss of approximately Nine Hundred and Twenty (920) positions.” Id.

Prior to Plaintiff's termination, Jackson had three CCLs, with Dr. Alexandre Ferreira (“Dr. Ferreira”) serving as Medical Director of Cardiology at Jackson Main Campus (earning $489,249.28 per year), Dr. Cesar Mendoza serving as Medical Director of Cardiac Imaging (earning $360,499.36 per year), and Plaintiff serving as the Medical Director of the Cath Lab at Jackson South (earning $514,999.68 per year). [ECF No. 62 at ¶ 11]. After eliminating Plaintiffs position in May 2012, Dr. Ferreira assumed oversight of all three CCLs throughout Jackson. Id. Then, in October 2012, Dr. Zambrano was hired as an Associate Medical Director for the Cath Lab at Jackson South (earning approximately $425,000 per year). Id. Plaintiff alleges that he was treated less favorably than Drs. Ferreira, Mendoza, and Zambrano, three similarly situated employees who are Hispanic and younger than him. Id. at ¶ 28. While Plaintiff maintains that board certification in interventional cardiology is not a prerequisite for employment for any medical director or associate medical director in cardiology position [ECF No. 74 at ¶ 45], the parties do not dispute the fact that “all three alleged comparators were board certified in interventional cardiology.” Id. at ¶ 29. By contrast, Plaintiff's certification in interventional cardiology lapsed in 2010. [ECF No. 62–1 at 16 (Margolis Dep. at 58:4–8) ]. Nonetheless, Plaintiff claims that he “was replaced by Drs. Ferreira and Zambrano despite Plaintiff being more qualified than his replacements.” [ECF No. 62 at ¶ 34] (quoting ECF No. 62–1 at 41–42 (Margolis Dep. at 159:8–162:3; 163:24–164:9)); [ECF No. 74 at ¶ 34].

As set forth in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that at or around March 2012, Garcia recommended that Jackson terminate his employment because he was not “ ‘the appropriate candidate to lead [the] lab’ because he [was] ‘winding down his career.’ ” [ECF No. 74 at ¶ 83] (quoting ECF No. 74–8 at 2). Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that Garcia has a “ ‘pattern of discriminating against Non–Hispanic employees,’ stating that Non–Hispanics have been ‘almost completely eliminated in the cardiovascular area at least.’ ” [ECF No. 62 at ¶ 27] (quoting ECF No. 62–1 at 37) (Margolis Dep. at 145:11–16). In support of these allegations, Plaintiff references “age-based comments” Jackson made regarding his employment, “when it told Dr. Margolis' patient that he ‘retired’ ... and sent letters to Dr. Margolis' patients stating that he is ‘pursuing other interests.’ ” [ECF No. 74 at ¶ 86] (quoting ECF No. 74–16 at ¶¶ 4, 6; ECF No. 74–15 at 3).

On or about April 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed suit against Jackson alone in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami–Dade County, Florida, to address the alleged deprivation of rights secured by Title VII, the ADEA, and the FCRA. [ECF No. 1–1 at 4]. Jackson duly filed a Notice of Removal on April 21, 2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, removing the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed on or about June 20, 2014 added Garcia as a defendant to the lawsuit, alleging deprivation of constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a result of Garcia's willful, malicious, and deliberate discrimination against Plaintiff based on his race and/or national origin. [ECF No. 18 at ¶ 41]. Alternatively, Plaintiff claims Garcia willfully, maliciously, and deliberately caused Jackson to discriminate against him based on his race and/or national origin. Id. at ¶ 41. As to all counts, Plaintiff requests a money judgment against Jackson representing compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, lost benefits, mental anguish, and emotional distress, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Id. at 7. As to Garcia, Plaintiff also requests compensatory damages, including but not limited to, damages for personal humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress, punitive damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Id. at 8. Defendants seek summary judgment as to all counts of the Amended Complaint on the basis that Plaintiff can neither establish a prima facie case...