Dentons Digest
On June 6, 2024, in Abdurahman v. Prospect CCMC, LLC et al., 2:20-CV-03609 (E.D. Penn.), District Judge Chad F. Kenney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Defendant Prospect CCMC, LLC (a hospital)’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Dina Abdurahman’s discrimination and hostile work environment claims. The district court granted summary judgment on two of the plaintiff’s discrimination theories because she failed to designate evidence of any similarly situated comparators who were drug tested and terminated from their employment for inappropriate sexual conduct. The court denied summary judgment on one of the plaintiff’s other discrimination theories and her sexual harassment claim and reasoned that the plaintiff designated enough evidence showing the harassment was “severe and pervasive.” In addition, the district court found that there was evidence that the hospital failed to investigate the plaintiff’s allegations of sexual harassment and only investigated her alleged harasser’s allegations of sexual harassment. This decision highlights the importance of thorough investigations into employee complaints of discrimination and hostile work environment.
Case Background
Dina Abdurahman, female, black resident emergency room doctor, (the “plaintiff”), sued her employer, Prospect CCMC, LLC, D/B/A Crozer-Chester Medical Center (the “hospital”), and asserted that the hospital discriminated against her based on her race and national origin and allowed another white female doctor to create a hostile work environment.
The plaintiff asserted that on September 18, 2018, during a gathering at another female doctor’s home, that female doctor inappropriately touched and kissed the plaintiff, discussed with her husband and the plaintiff “girl-on-girl” pornography, and suggested that the plaintiff spend the night in their bed. The plaintiff also asserted that on another occasion, the female doctor commented on her breasts and called her “hot.” The plaintiff reported the female doctor to the hospital, and the female doctor raised competing allegations that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted her on September 18, 2018. Several months later, the hospital terminated the plaintiff’s employment after an independent investigator found that it was more likely than not that the plaintiff sexually assaulted the female doctor and engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with other doctors.
Following discovery, the hospital filed a motion for summary judgment.
The District Court’s Ruling
The district court granted the hospital summary judgment on two of the plaintiff’s race discrimination theories. On the first theory, the court found that the hospital’s drug testing of the plaintiff gave rise to an inference of discrimination because the plaintiff failed to designate any evidence showing that the hospital only investigated and did not drug test other residents that were not black. On the second theory, the court found that the plaintiff failed to identify any similarly situated comparators that were treated more favorably and not terminated for similar conduct. The court explained that the plaintiff’s identified comparator was not similarly situated because he was never accused of sexual assault.
The district court also denied summary judgment on one of the plaintiff’s discrimination theories and on the sexual harassment claim. As it relates to the sexual harassment claim, the district court found that the plaintiff designated enough evidence showing that a reasonable jury could find that the female doctor’s conduct was “severe or pervasive” enough to create a hostile work environment. The district court explained that the plaintiff designated evidence that the female doctor touched her in multiple places, including her leg, kissed her, told her about her preference for “girl on girl” pornography, commented on her breasts, and said she was “hot.”
As it relates to both the sexual harassment claim and plaintiff’s discrimination claim, the district court further explained that the evidence showing that the hospital knew about, but did not investigate, both the plaintiff’s and the female doctor’s allegations precluded summary judgment. The court explained that the hospital had notice of the female doctor’s conduct because the former Vice President of the hospital testified that the hospital and its outside investigator knew about, but did not investigate, the plaintiff’s allegations of sexual harassment against the plaintiff. The court held that “[a] reasonable jury could find the fact that [the hospital] only investigated [the female doctor’s] claims, but ignored [the plaintiff’s]—even when both are based upon competing narratives of the events of September 18, 2018, and even when both are accusing each other of sexual misconduct—gives rise to an inference of discrimination.” The court held that, based on this evidence, a reasonable jury could find an inference of discrimination and pretext for terminating the plaintiff’s employment.
Implications for Employers/Companies
Abdurahman v. Prospect highlights the importance of exhaustive investigations into employee complaints of discrimination and hostile work environment. When employees file competing complaints, employers must promptly conduct a thorough investigation into both of the complaints before taking adverse action against either of the employees.
