Two physicians, Dr. Cheri Nabil El-Halawany and Dr. Lien Pham Russell, sued The Children’s Mercy Hospital in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, raising claims of employment discrimination based on race, national origin, and sex under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital, finding the physicians failed to make a prima facie case of unlawful employment discrimination, and the physicians appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Factual Overview
Dr. El-Halawany, an Egyptian woman, worked as a physician at Children’s Mercy Hospital from November 2012 until August 2021. Dr. Russell, a Vietnamese woman, worked as a physician at CMH from January 2008 until August 2021. Both physicians reported to Doctor G.P. from 2015 until April 2021 and were part of the General Academic Pediatrics Division.
In November 2020, CMH entered into a partnership with Vibrant Health, requiring CMH to provide physician staffing at the Vibrant clinic location, a federally qualified health center serving children from lower-income families. Doctor G.P. issued multiple calls for volunteers to work at the Vibrant clinic, offering a $20,000 salary supplement for a one-year commitment. When no physicians volunteered by the December 15, 2020 deadline, Doctor G.P. used three objective criteria to assign physicians: Clinical FTE (number of clinical shifts), Roles (duties requiring presence at other locations), and Clinical Contributions (committee responsibilities). The criteria explicitly did not include race, sex, national origin, or age.
After applying these criteria to all thirty-seven GAP physicians, the five physicians with the highest scores were required to take temporary assignments at Vibrant. Both appellants were among the five selected. They initially refused the assignment and complained of discrimination in the selection process. CMH’s Senior Director of Employee Relations investigated and concluded no violation of anti-discrimination policy occurred. The appellants began working at Vibrant on April 1, 2021.
While at Vibrant, the physicians remained CMH employees with the same benefits and were eligible for up to $15,000 in salary stipends. They complained of working conditions including a single day with a clogged sewage line, temporary phone system issues, a new medical records system, and perceived lack of support staff. Both physicians submitted resignations in May 2021, effective August 2021, after working only twelve to sixteen shifts at Vibrant. Both had received job offers elsewhere before resigning.
The physicians filed suit alleging discrimination and harassment based on race, national origin, and sex. Russell also alleged age discrimination. They sought punitive damages but the trial court denied their motion to amend. CMH filed for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, finding the physicians failed to establish an adverse employment action.
Legal Analysis
Rule 74.04 Compliance: The physicians argued CMH failed to comply with Rule 74.04’s electronic copy requirements for summary judgment motions. The court found CMH properly complied by filing through the court’s electronic filing system, which served a PDF copy that could be read by commonly used word processing programs. The court noted the certificate of service adequately stated the format and medium used for transmission.
Prima Facie Case of Discrimination: Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the physicians needed to establish: (1) membership in a protected class, (2) qualification for the job, (3) adverse employment action, and (4) more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected class. While the court acknowledged the physicians were qualified minority women, it found they failed to establish an adverse employment action.
The court determined that a temporary reassignment does not constitute adverse employment action absent a significant change in working conditions or diminution in title, salary, or benefits. The physicians remained primary care pediatricians with the same employment benefits and were eligible for additional salary stipends. The court found the complained-of working conditions at Vibrant—including a one-day sewage problem, temporary phone issues, a different medical records system, and perceived lack of support staff—were minor and temporary issues insufficient to establish adverse employment action.
Motions in Limine: The court declined to address the physicians’ challenge to the trial court’s rulings on motions in limine, noting that such rulings preserve nothing for appeal when the case is resolved on summary judgment rather than proceeding to trial.
Punitive Damages: The court declined to address the denial of the motion to amend for punitive damages since it found no error in granting summary judgment on the underlying claims.
Procedural Issues: The court criticized the physicians’ appellate brief for multiple rule violations, including argumentative statements of fact that violated Rule 84.04(c), failure to cite specific page references, and inappropriate citation to post-judgment newspaper articles. Despite these deficiencies, the court exercised discretion to review the case on the merits.
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, finding the physicians failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination because they could not demonstrate they suffered an adverse employment action.
Schrag on Law 