Singh v. Cnty. of Santa Clara
| Docket Number | H049688 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 2024 |
| Parties | BINDYA H.S.B. SINGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 2013-1-13-CV-244607
Dr Bindya Singh sued Santa Clara County in 2013 for retaliation and discrimination after her position as a neonatologist at the County's Valley Medical Center hospital (VMC) was eliminated. Following this court's reversal of the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the County (H043741), the matter proceeded to trial in 2021 on Singh's two remaining causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Labor Code section 1102.5.[1]
The trial court granted the County's motion for nonsuit as to Singh's section 1102.5 cause of action, holding that FEHA precludes bringing a race-based retaliation claim under section 1102.5 predicated on identical facts, and that the evidence could not support a jury verdict in Singh's favor on her other section 1102.5 claims. The FEHA cause of action proceeded to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the County.
On appeal, Singh argues FEHA does not preclude her race-based section 1102.5 claim, and the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict in her favor on the remaining claims under that statute. She also contends the trial court committed various evidentiary errors that necessitate reversal and retrial of her FEHA cause of action.
We determine that, because Singh has failed to demonstrate any prejudice, we need not decide whether the trial court erred in ruling that FEHA precludes a duplicative section 1102.5 cause of action. We also conclude the evidence would not support a jury verdict for Singh on her other section 1102.5 claims, so the trial court properly granted the County's motion for nonsuit. Lastly, we reject Singh's claims of evidentiary error. Accordingly, we affirm.
Singh became a board-certified neonatologist and pediatrician in 1997. After practicing elsewhere for 10 years, she was hired as a physician in May 2007 in VMC's department of pediatrics. Singh was assigned to VMC's neonatology unit, which specializes in care for critically ill or premature infants, particularly in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). During her tenure at VMC, Singh reported to Dr. Balaji Govindaswami, division chief of neonatology and director of the NICU.
Singh claims VMC and Govindaswami retaliated because of her opposition to race discrimination and her disclosure of other legal violations by Govindaswami. She identifies several specific incidents she contends gave rise to the retaliation. We summarize the trial evidence regarding those incidents below.[2]
Singh contends that she objected to Govindaswami diverting VMC resources to invest in equipment developed by a company in which Govindaswami owned stock. Specifically, she testified that, while on a flight to a work conference in 2007 or 2008, Govindaswami told her he had asked his friends and family to purchase stock in a company called Masimo, which produces pulse oximetry equipment, at the same time he was promoting the company's equipment at VMC. She claimed Govindaswami also suggested that she personally invest in Masimo. During the same conversation, Govindaswami allegedly told Singh he wanted her to help divert business from her former employer, Good Samaritan Hospital.
After they returned to the office, Singh told Govindaswami that she was not comfortable with what he had said and she was "not willing to participate." According to Singh, Govindaswami told her that if she did not do as he said, he would "not have a position for [her]" at VMC.
Govindaswami testified he never told Singh she should invest in Masimo or that he had told his family and friends to purchase Masimo stock. He also testified that, although he did own Masimo stock, he properly disclosed his ownership and recused himself from VMC decisions regarding selection of medical equipment possibly involving Masimo.
In 2009, Dr. Priya Jegatheesan, another neonatologist at VMC, participated in a clinical study at UCSF. Singh contends that Jegatheesan, a junior neonatologist, was not eligible to participate in the study, and that "doctors with seniority had to go through a rigorous approval process" for such programs. Singh was concerned that the purpose of the study was "to support Dr. Govindaswami's publications and lobbying activities to promote Masimo pulse oximeters." Singh testified that she complained about Jegatheesan's participation in the clinical study to Dr. Stephen Harris, chair of VMC's pediatrics department, objecting to what she characterized as the misuse of County funds.
Singh testified to multiple instances of anti-white racial discrimination by Govindaswami. According to Singh, she sought to take a particular nurse educator to another hospital to teach in a videotaped neonatal resuscitation program, but Govindaswami objected, telling her to "make videos with colored people," and that "there were enough white people in the videos." Later, in 2010, Govindaswami allegedly told Singh that he intended to replace the nurse educator's staff position with a "colored person."[3] Singh testified that she objected to Govindaswami, who expressed his displeasure with her through his mannerisms, behavior and conduct: "he suddenly looked at me very angrily, dismissed me and walked away abruptly."
In another incident in 2007 or 2008, Singh alleges, Govindaswami accused VMC's incoming chair of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN), Dr. James Byrne, of being a racist, and told Singh that he "did not want a white man in power." Singh testified that she knew Byrne was not a racist, having worked with him at their previous hospital, and having seen him work with people of color, including herself. She shared her thoughts with Govindaswami, who nevertheless announced at a subsequent VMC staff meeting that there were rumors Byrnes was a racist.
Sometime thereafter, Singh testified, Govindswami approached her in a corridor and said, Singh also testified that she emailed Byrne regarding the incident, supporting his candidacy and debunking the rumor.
Byrne testified that he never received any such e-mail from Singh. He acknowledged that Govindaswami had informed him about an accusation made by a physician at a different hospital that Byrne was racist. However, Byrne never heard Govindaswami or anyone else propagate that rumor and Byrne testified that Govindaswami supported his candidacy for the OBGYN chair.
Two other witnesses-Dr. Christina Anderson and Dr. Brian Scottoline, each of whom is white-corroborated Singh's testimony that Govindaswami favored non-white doctors over white doctors and that Singh stood up for them. Anderson testified, for instance, that she was excluded from certain professional activities by Govindaswami in favor of non-white doctors, despite her qualifications. Similarly, Scottoline testified that he observed Govindaswami treat white doctors and nurses differently than non-whites. In addition, he heard Govindaswami use the terms "Stanford Ivory Tower" and "White Stanford Club," referring to white doctors at VMC who had studied at Stanford.
Govindaswami testified that he never made any of the alleged racist statements.
Singh contends that she complained about VMC violating certain NICU staffing requirements set forth in the California Children's Services Manual (CCSM). According to Singh, the CCSM mandates that a certified neonatologist or other physician with specified emergency training for newborns be present in the NICU at all times, and she objected to VMC's failure to adhere to that standard.
At trial, both Anderson and Scottoline testified that they observed Singh complain about the level of staffing of neonatologists during the night shift, and that the NICU needed another neonatologist.
Singh argues that Govindaswami and Harris sought to save costs by having no neonatologist or trained newborn specialist in the NICU at night, and instead "adopted a rule that as long as a [neonatologist] was on call for emergency cases in which a neonatologist was needed, it was sufficient for a hospitalist physician who was not a neonatologist to be present in the hospital at night."
In May 2009, Singh co-authored a paper regarding a patient born with a cleft palate, and its association with a particular genetic marker. Singh was listed as the first author on the paper, along with six other doctors who participated or contributed.
Singh testified that she had discovered the genetic association, and had reached out to Dr. Robert Wallerstein, a geneticist at VMC, and invited him to join in writing the paper. Singh claimed that Govindaswami "inserted his name" into the paper without justification, and then sent it to be published without her approval. She objected to this at two different meetings, first with Harris, and then with Harris, Govindaswami and Wallerstein. According to Singh, her intellectual property had been taken without her consent. She claimed that Harris responded to her complaint by saying:
Wallerstein...
To continue reading
Request your trial