7th Circuit: Physician Denied Leave And Terminated Not 'Employee' Under Federal Discrimination Laws

In a recent victory for a medical practice, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision that a physician partner in a Wisconsin medical practice was an employer not subject to the protections afforded to employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Bluestein v. Cent. Wis. Anesthesiology, S.C., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19760, No. 13-3724 (7th Cir. Oct. 15, 2014).

The plaintiff doctor in this case was injured in a kayaking accident and requested a leave of absence to recover from the injury. After providing various accommodations and allowing the physician to utilize paid leave time, the medical practice voted not to provide another four months of leave and to instead either terminate the physician's employment or allow her to resign from her position. After the doctor did not resign, she was terminated by the medical practice. She then brought suit for discrimination under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act and Title VII.

The district court considered the six factors set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Clackamus Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (2003), and found the plaintiff was an employer rather than an employee. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the granting of summary judgment for the medical group and distinguished its determination from that made in EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, 315 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2002), in which the court found that a group of law firm partners were "employees" who could pursue age discrimination claims against the defendant law firm. In contrast, the court explained that the plaintiff was part of the board at her medical group that voted on all major decisions at the practice and that four of the six factors identified in Clackamus weighed in favor of determining the plaintiff was an employer, not an employee. The court explained that the board of the medical group comprised of all 16 partners at the plaintiff's practice and that the board voted on all major decisions...