Parish v. Upmc Univ. Health Ctr. of Pittsburgh
| Decision Date | 10 April 2019 |
| Docket Number | 2:16-cv-00006 |
| Parties | Dr. Deborah PARISH, Plaintiff, v. UPMC UNIVERSITY HEALTH CENTER OF PITTSBURGH, Dr. Evan L. Waxman, Dr. Susan Stefko and Dr. Joel S. Schuman, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Christian Bagin, Wienand & Bagin, Gregory G. Paul, Morgan & Paul, PLLC, Sean Alan Casey, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff.
James B. Brown, Jennifer S. Park, Lindsay M. Buchanan, Lisa Lynne Garrett, Cohen & Grigsby, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendants.
This Title VII employment discrimination case arises out Plaintiff Deborah Parish's ("Plaintiff") tenure as an ophthalmology resident with Defendant UPMC University Health Center of Pittsburgh ("UPMC"). Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants UPMC, Dr. Evan L. Waxman ("Dr. Waxman"), Dr. Susan Stefko ("Dr. Stefko") and Dr. Joel S. Schuman ("Dr. Schuman") (collectively, "Defendants"). (Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 136.) For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.
Plaintiff's operative Fourth Amended Complaint2 asserts multiple claims under various employment anti-discrimination statutes.3 Count I asserts a claim of pregnancy discrimination against UPMC under Title VII,4 the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,5 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA).6 Count II asserts a claim of gender discrimination against UPMC under Title VII and PHRA. Count IV asserts a claim for retaliation against UPMC under Title VII. Count V asserts a claim for aiding and abetting discrimination against Dr. Waxman, Dr. Stefko and Dr. Schuman (the "Individual Defendants") under the PHRA. Finally, Count VI asserts a claim for retaliation against UPMC under the PHRA.
As explained in detail below, Plaintiff entered UPMC's Ophthalmology Residency Program ("Residency Program") as a first-year resident in July 2013. She gave birth to her first child in the beginning of her second year of residency. Half-way through her second year, Plaintiff was placed on probation. At the end of her second year, she was required to repeat multiple rotations. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff's participation in the Residency Program was terminated Plaintiff argues that she was subjected to adverse employment actions based on her pregnancy, but Defendants argue that all of the actions taken against Plaintiff were based on her unsatisfactory performance in the Residency Program.
UPMC's Residency Program is a three-year clinical training program in which residents rotate through the various "services" within the Ophthalmology Department under the supervision of faculty and attending physicians.7 The service rotations include:
• Neuro-Ophthalmology Service
• Oculoplastics ("Plastics")
• Pediatric Ophthalmology ("Peds")
• Retina and Veterans Administration Hospital Service ("VA").8
In addition to being part of a clinic team on rotations, residents also are expected to be "on call," which involves them interacting with patients and working more independently as they advance.9
In 2013, UPMC materially changed its Residency Program's evaluation process from one in which many faculty members meet to evaluate the residents to one in which a smaller Clinical Competency Committee ("CCC") meets on a semi-annual basis to review and evaluate the residents.10 Residents are provided with daily feedback from various faculty, staff, patients and peers as they work with patients, and they are expected to demonstrate increasing levels of proficiency in various "competencies" as they progress through the Program.11 Those competencies include: (1) patient care and procedural skills, (2) medical knowledge, (3) practice-based learning and improvement, (4) interpersonal and communication skills, (5) professionalism, and (6) systems-based practice. At the end of each rotation, faculty members that interacted with the resident on that rotation complete a "Milestone Evaluation," in which they rate the resident from 1 to 5 for each competency.12 The CCC then considers those Milestone Evaluations along with other factors (incident reports, commendations, standardized exam scores, peer and staff evaluations, patient evaluations, and grand-rounds performance) to reach a "360-review" that is shared with the resident through a letter.13 Consistent with the goal of training residents to practice in all aspects of ophthalmology, good performance in one or two subspecialties of ophthalmology does not negate serious deficiencies in other areas, since the assessment is a holistic one as to the resident's fitness to proceed as an ophthalmologist.14 During Plaintiff's time as a resident, Drs. Waxman and Stefko were members of the CCC, and Dr. Schuman was the Chairman of the Department of Ophthalmology at University of Pittsburgh Physicians.15
The CCC decides whether a resident will be promoted to the next year of residency.16 A resident need not receive at least a "Level 4" in all milestones or secure a certain standardized test score in order to graduate from the Program.17 Similarly, there is no finite number of mistakes that a resident is allowed (or not) before they are terminated from participation. Finally, under UPMC's Resident/Fellow Termination Policy, a resident may be terminated from participation for a number of reasons, including unsatisfactory performance and endangering patient safety.18
Before the Court summarizes Plaintiff's performance and experience in the Residency Program, one point must be addressed. The parties, on both sides of the caption, appear to "cherry-pick" quotes from depositions and various performance evaluations in the record, with Plaintiff largely ignoring undisputed evidence of negative feedback and Defendants largely ignoring similar evidence of positive feedback. The Court, therefore, provides this factual section based on the facts construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, not any party's selective and tilted interpretations of the facts. In the most glaring example, in Plaintiff's CSMF, she averages together Milestone Ratings in an effort to prove that Plaintiff was "at level" for the rotation as a whole, but the record is clear and undisputed that when those Milestone Evaluations are reviewed by the CCC, they are not so averaged. (See, e.g. , Pl.'s CSMF ¶ 267; Defs.' SMF ¶ 20; Pl.'s CSMF ¶¶ 20, 267.) To accept Plaintiff's system of "averaging" would enable Plaintiff to reformulate the employer's standards in a manner that enables her to meet them, which is beyond the deference provided to Plaintiff as the non-moving party at this stage. Simpson v. Kay Jewelers , 142 F.3d 639, 647 (3d Cir. 1998) () (emphasis added). With that, the Court turns to the record facts relevant here, viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff accepted employment with the Residency Program as a first-year resident, or PGY-2 level, for the period beginning July 1, 2013, through June 30, 2014.19 In or around November 2013, Plaintiff made her pregnancy known to Dr. Waxman, Dr. Schuman, Dr. Martel, Dr. Stefko, and other doctors.20
After her first six months (i.e. the first review period), around January or February 2014, Plaintiff received her First PGY-2 Semi-Annual Review Letter ("First Review Letter") from the CCC.21 Plaintiff objected to some of the content in this First Review Letter on the basis that it was worded differently than the rotation evaluations that she had received directly.22 The parties dispute the extent to which the First Review Letter accurately reflected the previous six months of evaluations that Plaintiff received.23 However, it is undisputed that "[s]ome problems were noted" in Plaintiff's early rotations.24 The evaluation of Plaintiff's first rotation—Plastics—prior to Plaintiff's disclosure of her pregnancy noted concerns as to Plaintiff's "fund of knowledge," her decision-making and her willingness or ability to take responsibility for her own actions or medical knowledge.25 However, Defendants acknowledged that a low score is typical for a resident's first rotation evaluation.26 Some problems arose in other rotations, including misdiagnoses and difficulty with presenting, demonstrating medical knowledge, and clinical performance.27 It is also undisputed that Plaintiff received some commendation during this first review period.28 In fact, Plaintiff received "at" or "above level" ratings in Neuro-Ophthalmology, Cornea and Retina, as well as positive comments on those rotation evaluations.29
Ultimately, Dr. Schuman felt the language of the First Review Letter was harsher than necessary in light of the rotation evaluations and asked Dr. Waxman to decrease the harshness of the comments, concluding that the First Review Letter's conclusions were not supported by the rotation evaluations, including the rotational evaluation from Plaintiff's rotation with Dr. Waxman.30 Dr. Waxman then issued a "Revised" First Review Letter.31 It is undisputed that the Revised First Review Letter "was more consistent with the milestone documents that were completed" during the review period and characterized Plaintiff's performance up to that point as "very good."32 Plaintiff continued through her rotations during the second-half of her first year, i.e. the second review period of level PGY-2. The parties also dispute the quality of Plaintiff's performance during this time period, but both parties rely on the same record evidence to support their respective position: Dr. Waxman's deposition.33 In the first rotation, Pediatrics, Plaintiff had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean v. Phila. Gas Works
...days unduly suggestive); Jalil v. Avdel Corp., 873 F.2d 71, 708 (3d Cir. 1989) (two days); cf. Parish v. UPMC Univ. Health Ctr. of Pittsburgh, 373 F. Supp. 3d 608, 636 (W.D. Pa. 2019) ("unduly suggestive temporal proximity usually falls within periods of days or weeks").12 Nonetheless, for ......
-
Krohmer v. Am. Airlines, Inc.
...persons; or (3) the employer has treated more favorably similarly situated employees outside of the plaintiff's protected class.” Parish, 373 F.Supp.3d at 633. argues that he establishes pretext for both his ADA and Title VII claims under both Fuentes prongs. (ECF No. 65, at 12.) Plaintiff ......
-
Harper v. Odle Mgmt. Co.
...the defendant must provide a nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment action. Id.; Parish v. UPMC Univ. Health Ctr. Of Pittsburgh, 373 F. Supp. 3d 608, 629 (W.D. Pa. 2019). Once the defendant produces such a nondiscriminatory reason, the burden then rebounds back to the plaintiff......
-
Kramer v. Franklin Covey Co.
...points to others outside of her protected class who were treated more favorably than her. Parish v. UPMC University Health Center of Pittsburgh, 373 F. Supp. 3d 608, 628-30 (W.D. Pa. 2019). In cases involving a reduction in force, however, the standard is more relaxed. Sabo v. UPMC Altoona,......