Nadia Nathan v. The Ohio State University, et al
Filing
OPINION filed : Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and for the reasons thoroughly discussed in the district court's well-reasoned opinion, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment on Dr. Nathan's discrimination and retaliation claims. Decision not for publication. Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judge; David W. McKeague, Circuit Judge authoring, and David M. Lawson, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of MI.
Case: 13-4390
Document: 42-2
Filed: 08/21/2014
Page: 1
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0657n.06
FILED
Case No. 13-4390
Aug 21, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
NADIA NATHAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT
FOR
THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
OPINION
BEFORE: GIBBONS and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; LAWSON, District Judge.*
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Dr. Nadia Nathan brings a Title VII discrimination and
retaliation action against the Ohio State University (“OSU”).
Dr. Nathan joined OSU’s
anesthesiology department as a cardiac anesthesiologist and Associate Professor in 2005. She
was terminated from her position in 2009 purportedly because of work-related difficulties. Dr.
Nathan initiated the present action against OSU in September of 2010, alleging that she was
discriminated against on the basis of her gender and also retaliated against for bringing a
discrimination lawsuit in Massachusetts against her previous employer.
The district court
granted OSU’s motion for summary judgment after determining that Dr. Nathan had failed to
*
The Honorable David M. Lawson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Michigan, sitting by designation.
Case: 13-4390
Document: 42-2
Filed: 08/21/2014
Page: 2
Case No. 13-4390 Nathan v. The Ohio State University, et al.
show that the proffered reasons for her termination were pretexual. For the same reasons
detailed in the district court opinion, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment.
Following discovery, OSU moved for summary judgment in July of 2012. Focusing on
Dr. Nathan’s Title VII retaliation and discrimination claims, which are the only claims before us
on appeal, OSU argued in its initial motion for summary judgment that Dr. Nathan had not
demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination, and even if she had, OSU contended that it
had articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination. Specifically, OSU
alleged that Dr. Nathan was terminated because she was unproductive, unprofessional,
disruptive, chronically late, and generally unavailable. OSU additionally expressed suspicion
that Dr. Nathan had faked being sick, and further alleged that Dr. Nathan had manipulated the
clinical schedule, received low resident evaluations, and frequently failed to timely enter
postoperative orders. Dr. Nathan countered that these arguments were not based in fact and were
insufficient to warrant her termination.
In a lengthy 37-page opinion, the district court thoroughly evaluated all of Dr. Nathan’s
claims under the well-established McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework.1
See
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 803 (1973). The district court assumed for
purposes of its analysis that Dr. Nathan had established a prima facie case of discrimination and
retaliation, and focused its attention on the pretext analysis. The district court extensively
evaluated each of the proffered legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for Dr. Nathan’s
termination and concluded that they were supported by a clear basis in fact. The district court
1
Under McDonnell-Douglas, the complainant has the burden of establishing a prima facie case
of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. If this burden is met, the employer
must “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.” Id. at
802. At that point, the burden shifts back to the complainant to demonstrate by a preponderance
of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were pretextual. Id. at 804;
see also Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).
-2-
Case: 13-4390
Document: 42-2
Filed: 08/21/2014
Page: 3
Case No. 13-4390 Nathan v. The Ohio State University, et al.
further probed OSU’s motivation for dismissing Dr. Nathan and assessed whether her conduct
was sufficiently improper to warrant termination.
After a comprehensive discussion and
analysis, the district court concluded that Dr. Nathan had failed to show that any other
anesthesiologist had the same degree and breadth of performance issues and was retained by
OSU.
We agree with this analysis. After reviewing the briefs, the district court’s opinion, and
the voluminous record, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to
OSU. Notwithstanding Dr. Nathan’s allegations to the contrary, OSU has provided substantial
evidence to support its proffered rationales for Dr. Nathan’s dismissal. Dr. Nathan has simply
not identified any comparator, similarly situated in all relevant respects and engaged in acts of
comparable seriousness, who was retained. See Wright v. Murray Guard, Inc., 455 F.3d 702,
710 (6th Cir. 2006). Dr. Nathan attempts to pick apart this analysis by isolating each issue,
whether post-operative orders or her disruptive behavior, and to argue that there were systematic
problems that account for her poor performance or that others had performance issues or that her
poor performance should be excused. But this misses the point. The question is not whether
other employees also performed poorly in one or two areas, but whether taken altogether they
performed equally as poorly as Dr. Nathan and whether her conduct as a whole justified her
dismissal. As the district court properly noted, none of the other doctors who were retained
match Dr. Nathan for the variety and severity of her misconduct, and those that did were
dismissed. Because Dr. Nathan has not presented evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact
could find that OSU’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination were pretextual,
her claim fails.
-3-
Case: 13-4390
Document: 42-2
Filed: 08/21/2014
Page: 4
Case No. 13-4390 Nathan v. The Ohio State University, et al.
As the district court correctly set out the applicable law and correctly applied that law to
the factual allegations, issuance of a full opinion by this court would serve no jurisprudential
purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above and for the reasons thoroughly discussed in
the district court’s well-reasoned opinion, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment on Dr.
Nathan’s discrimination and retaliation claims.
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?