Strother v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, s. 94-56046
| Citation | 79 F.3d 859 |
| Decision Date | 03 June 1996 |
| Docket Number | 94-56279,Nos. 94-56046,s. 94-56046 |
| Parties | 67 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,979, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1610, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2734 Germaine D. STROTHER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, a California partnership; Gary A. Lulejian, an individual; David Bridgeford, an individual, Defendants-Appellees. Germaine D. STROTHER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP; Gary A. Lulejian, an individual; David Bridgeford, an individual; Paul Deiter, an individual, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Theresa M. Traber and Bert Voorhees, Traber, Voorhees & Olguin, Law Office of Traber & Voorhees, Pasadena, California, for the plaintiff-appellant.
David D. Kadue, Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, Los Angeles, California, for the defendants-appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding.
Before: BRIGHT, * SKOPIL, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
Dr. Germaine D. Strother, a physician partner in the Southern California Permanente Medical Group ("Medical Group"), sued the Medical Group and two physician partners in the Medical Group alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; racial and gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal.Gov't Code §§ 12900 et seq.; race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Article I, § 8 of the California Constitution; and arbitrary gender and race discrimination in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal.Civ.Code §§ 51 and 51.5. The district court granted the Medical Group's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on the FEHA discrimination claim, and the Medical Group's motion for summary judgment on all other claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Strother is an African-American female partner in the Medical Group, which provides medical services in Southern California to members of the Kaiser Permanente Health Plan. From 1985 to the present, Strother has worked as a family practice physician in the Medical Group's West Covina clinic. In 1987, Strother received the title of partner in the Medical Group, and in July 1989 she was appointed Assistant Physician-in-Charge ("APIC") at the West Covina clinic.
The West Covina clinic had historically been a part of the Los Angeles Area of the Medical Group. In 1988-91, the Medical Group expanded its services in the San Gabriel Valley, warranting the creation of a new Baldwin Park service area, which included facilities in West Covina and four other communities. Defendant Gary A. Lulejian was appointed to head this new Baldwin Park Area, first as an acting director, and then as Area Associate Medical Director when the area officially opened in 1992. The Medical Group claims that Lulejian set out to reorganize the clinics within the Baldwin Park Area, which included the elimination of the APIC position and the selection of several "Module Lead" physicians overseeing groups of doctors in each clinic.
Lulejian first met with Strother in December 1989. According to the Medical Group, Lulejian had received numerous negative reports about Strother's performance as APIC. Lulejian shared these perceptions with Strother and offered to help her improve her personal leadership skills, but Strother allegedly failed to acknowledge and address Lulejian's observations. Strother claims that Lulejian told her at the meeting that her APIC position "did not exist," that she should stop attending certain administrative meetings, and that she would not achieve any professional advancement in the Medical Group so long as he had the power to prevent it.
From 1990 through the present, the Medical Group made a series of appointments to administrative and committee positions for which Strother claims she was qualified, including Physician in Charge ("PIC") positions at other clinics and Module Lead positions at West Covina, but for which she was neither considered nor appointed. For its part, the Medical Group asserts that others were more appropriate appointees for these positions because of better interpersonal skills and, in some cases, because of medical specialties more appropriate for the positions. The Medical Group contends that Dr. David Bridgeford, PIC for West Covina and an African-American, found Strother to have an "overbearing and abrasive personality style" which disqualified her for certain leadership positions. Strother twice ran to represent the Baldwin Park Area on the Medical Group's Board of Directors, but received only one and two votes out of 45-50 doctors in each of the elections. Her APIC position was phased out as part of the area reorganization, but Strother continues to serve the Starting on May 30, 1991, Strother complained to other partners of the Medical Group, including the Associate Area Medical Director, about the alleged discriminatory promotions and appointments being made by Lulejian. On August 13, 1991, Bridgeford allegedly told Strother that he knew about her complaints and warned that filing a discrimination charge would be against her interests. Strother filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing on September 12, 1991, alleging violations of Title VII. On September 13, 1991, she was replaced as Personal Physician coordinator. According to Strother, she was later barred from attending several Quality Assurance seminars and committee meetings, and was denied two Quality Assurance positions in 1992. She also alleges that she suffered discrimination and verbal and physical abuse in a number of ways. 2
Medical Group as a partner in a variety of administrative capacities. 1
On September 15, 1992, Strother commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Medical Group and several individual partners, including Lulejian and Bridgeford, 3 alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; racial and gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal.Gov't Code §§ 12900 et seq. ("FEHA"); race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Article I, § 8 of the California Constitution; arbitrary racial and gender discrimination in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal.Civ.Code § 51 ("Unruh Act"); and related common law claims. In March 1993, the district court granted the Medical Group's 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Strother's FEHA discrimination claim "on the grounds that [Strother] is a bona fide partner of the medical group and not an employee for the purpose" of FEHA. Strother later added Cal.Civ.Code § 51.5 to her claims, and abandoned several of her common law claims.
On May 25, 1994, the district court granted the Medical Group's motion for summary judgment on all of Strother's remaining claims. The district court held that under Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 109 S.Ct. 2363, 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989), Strother's 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims based on "post-contract formation" treatment prior to November 12, 1991 were untenable, and that insofar as the claim was based on conduct occurring prior to September 15, 1991, it was barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations. The court held that Strother had "failed to show that there is a genuine issue as to any material fact to support" her FEHA retaliation claim. Because Strother had "not shown that she was denied the ability to enter or pursue her profession," the district court found that her claims based directly on Article I, § 8 of the California Constitution could not lie. Finally, the district court dismissed Strother's claims under the Unruh Act, Cal.Civ.Code §§ 51 and 51.5 because Strother failed to "qualify as a customer, client, or patron of defendant Medical Group." 4
Strother appeals the district court's decision on her state and federal statutory and state constitutional claims. We reverse the district court's grant of the Medical Group's Rule 12(b)(6) motion on Strother's FEHA claim and remand for further proceedings. We also reverse and remand the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Medical Group on Strother's FEHA retaliation claim and her claim under revised 42 U.S.C. § 1981, insofar as it is based on her treatment after November 12, 1991. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Medical Group on Strother's § 1981 claim based on conduct occurring prior to November 12, 1991, her claims under Article I, § 8 of the California Constitution, and her claims under Cal.Civ.Code §§ 51 and 51.5. 5
A dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Stone v. Travelers Corp., 58 F.3d 434, 436-37 (9th Cir.1995). A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief. Parks Sch. of Business, Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir.1995).
A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1261, 134 L.Ed.2d 209 (1995). The appellate court must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Id.
We review the district court's interpretation of state law under the same independent de novo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marentes v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...and other persuasive authorities, such as decisions from courts in other jurisdictions and treatises. Strother v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Grp. , 79 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir. 1996). "In assessing how a state's highest court would resolve a state law question[,]...federal courts look to existin......
-
Shepard v. City of Portland
...v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir.1987)); Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir.1997); Strother v. Southern Cal. Permanente Med. Grp., 79 F.3d 859, 869 (9th Cir.1996); Madrid v. Cnty. of Apache, 289 Fed.Appx. 155, 159 (9th Cir.2008) (citing Ruggles v. Cal. Polytechnic State ......
-
Taylor v. Csx Transp.
...employee's hours, which reduces the employee's take-home pay, qualifies as a tangible employment action."); Strother v. S. Cal. Permanente Med. Group, 79 F.3d 859, 869 (9th Cir.1996) (Removal from a position that may lead to pay increases can constitute an adverse employment action). Even a......
-
Payne v. Anaheim Memorial Medical Center
...based upon the parties' relationship, other than in the employment context. Instead, it relies upon Strother v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (9th Cir.1996) 79 F.3d 859, for the proposition that physicians are somehow exempt from the protections of the civil rights law, and a......
-
Employment Relationship Defined
...although a partner in name, was an employee for ERISA and ADEA purposes); Strother v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group , 79 F.3d 859, 866-868 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that where many unanswered questions were left regarding how the partnership actually functioned, the district c......
-
Employment
...2d 483 (1997). However, mere ostracism is insufficient to demonstrate adverse treatment. Strother v. Southern Cal. Permanente Med. Group , 79 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1996). Actions prior to hiring, including discriminatory testing and selection procedures, may violate the statute. Cal. Code Regs......
-
Retaliation
...classroom, among a laundry list of other conduct, do not constitute adverse employment actions); Strother v. S. Ca. Permanente Med. Grp. , 79 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1996) (ostracism in the workplace is not enough to show an adverse employment decision). Rudeness, taken alone, is not sufficient ......
-
Retaliation
...among a laundry list of other conduct, do not constitute adverse employment actions); Strother v. Southern Ca. Permanente Med. Group , 79 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 1996) (ostracism in the workplace is not enough to show an adverse employment decision). Rudeness, taken alone, is not sufficient to c......