Mims v. Chilton Medical Center et al

Filing 57

OPINION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that the motions for summary judgment filed by defendants SunLink Health Systems, Inc. (Doc. No. 27 ) and Chilton Medical Center (Doc. No. 28 ) are denied as further set out in the opinion and order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/2/2012. (dmn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

STEPHANIE MIMS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHILTON MEDICAL CENTER and )
SUNLINK HEALTH SYSTEMS,
)
INC.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:11cv41-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff

Stephanie

Mims

brings

this

employment-

discrimination lawsuit against defendants Chilton Medical
Center, LLC, and SunLink Health Systems, Inc., charging
them with sexual harassment and retaliation in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,as amended,
42

U.S.C.

§§

1981a,

2000e-2000e-17.*

Jurisdiction

is

proper under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).

* While the record does not appear to indicate,
Chilton Medical’s attorney clarified at the pretrial
conference that it is an LLC.

Chilton Medical and SunLink Health move for summary
judgment on Mims’s sexual-harassment claim on the ground
that

she

has

failed

to

establish

a

hostile-work

environment and on the retaliation claim because Mims’s
termination was unrelated to her allegations of sexual
harassment.

In the alternative, SunLink Health contends

that it is entitled to summary judgment because it is not
an integrated employer with Chilton Medical.

For the

reasons given below, the summary-judgment motions will be
denied.

I.

SUMMARY-JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

The court must view the

evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that

2

party.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).

II.

BACKGROUND

Mims first met Bart Walker at the Russell Do-ItCenter where she worked as a cashier.

While engaging in

small talk at the cashier’s counter, Walker offered some
unsolicited

advice:

Mims

should

apply

for

a

job

at

Chilton Medical, a hospital where Walker worked as a
supervisor.

Walker subsequently returned and gave Mims

an employment application.

Mims applied to work at

Chilton Medical and was interviewed by Human Resources
Director Joann Bartlett.
In March 2008, Mims was hired as a housekeeper in
Chilton

Medical’s

Dietary/Environmental

Health

Department, performing basic functions such as pulling
trash and linen, sweeping, mopping, and dusting; she also
worked in Chilton Medical’s kitchen.

3

Walker served as

her supervisor in the housekeeping unit and during the
time she spent in the kitchen unit.
From March 2008 to March 2010, Walker made repeated
sexual advances toward Mims.

He would call her into his

office several times a day and tell her that he “wanted
her.”

Although

the

language

was

not

crude,

interpreted his comments as a sexual offer.

she

Walker also

contacted Mims outside of work, both by phone and text
message, to invite her over to his house.

Sometime after

November 2009, he wrote her at least one love letter
asking her to leave her husband and move in with him; in
return,

she

supervisor.
could

was

to

receive

a

promotion

to

kitchen

Finally, Mims stated that Walker implied he

protect

himself

against

any

complaints

filed

against him for his behavior. Mims was intimidated by
Walker’s behavior and tried to avoid being alone with
him.
Other

employees

behavior toward Mims.

noticed

Walker’s

inappropriate

Karon Oliver, a secretary at

4

Chilton Medical, witnessed Walker’s frequent overtures to
Mims.

She noted that Walker would stand near and follow

Mims very closely.

Oliver also saw a text message Walker

sent to Mims that read: “Please come to my house when you
get off work.”
Mims

was

not

Walker’s

only

target.

Almost

immediately upon arriving at Chilton Medical, Mims was
warned

by

other

female

employees

that

Walker

had

a

reputation for preying on his young female subordinates.
For example, Walker had an intimate relationship with
Cindy Mills, whom he had recruited to work at Chilton
Medical in a method similar to Mims’s experience. Mills
Deposition (Doc. No. 33-29) at 4-6 & 12.
Additionally, Walker had a long-standing non-sexual
dispute with Teresa Maddox.

In February 2009, Maddox

filed a written complaint with Chilton Medical about
Walker’s behavior.

Maddox accused Walker of calling her

a

verbally

“bitch,”

being

abusive

to

other

female

employees, and telling a subordinate that he was going to

5

“spank” her when she came over to his house that evening.
Maddox

Complaint

(Doc.

No.

33-19)

at

2.

Maddox’s

complaint also noted that Walker repeatedly contacted
Mims at home for non-work-related reasons and would page
Mims to come to his office several times a day.
Maddox’s complaint sparked an investigation by Human
Resources

Director

Bartlett

According

to

investigative

the

and

another

employee.

report,

Mims

was

interviewed and did not complain about Walker’s behavior;
instead, Mims stated that Walker contacted her outside of
working hours to check-up on her.
Following
kitchen

and

the

investigation,

housekeeping

Chilton

divisions

were

Medical’s

split,

with

Maddox supervising the kitchen and Walker overseeing the
housekeeping

unit.

notation

her

complaint.

in

Maddox
employment

Despite

a

received

a

record

for

decrease

Walker’s salary remained the same.

6

in

disciplinary
filing

the

responsibilities,
It is unclear from

the record when and how employees were informed about the
kitchen-and-housekeeping reorganization.
Around the time of the reorganization, Mims requested
a transfer to the housekeeping unit, where Walker would
remain her supervisor; however, Mims did not know at the
time she requested the transfer that Walker would no
longer have supervisory authority over the kitchen unit.
At various points in 2008 and 2009, Mims complained
about

Walker’s

Bartlett.

behavior

to

only

Resources

Director

Mims showed Bartlett some of the text messages

that Walker had sent her.
not

Human

ignored

these

According to Mims, Bartlett
complaints,

she

deleted

incriminating text messages from Mims’s phone.
these

failed

attempts

at

reporting

Walker’s

the

After
sexual

advances, Mims stopped lodging complaints with Bartlett
and instead expressed her problems to co-workers.
The tension between Walker and Mims escalated in
early

2010.

On

February

10,

7

2010,

he

sent

her

an

emoticon text message that she interprets as saying, “I
love you.”

Mims did not respond to the text message.

Shortly

thereafter,

on

February

16,

2010,

Mims

received negative reviews on her employee evaluation.
Compared to her 2009 evaluation, she received lower or
equal marks in all categories.

Compare 2010 Evaluation

(Doc. No. 33-4) with 2009 Evaluation (Doc. No. 33-35).
The 2010 evaluation also included a handwritten notation
from Walker: “Stephanie [Mims] has a problem with gossip
and making fictitious statements which lead to problems
with other staff members.

This has to end now, by

Stephanie not getting involved with the rumor mill or
starting false rumors.

This has been an ongoing problem

that seems to be getting worse.”
No. 33-4) at 4.

2010 Evaluation (Doc.

Bartlett asked Walker to include that

notation in order to “make a documentation that there had
been concerns.”
65-66.

The

Bartlett Deposition (Doc. No. 33-6) at

“rumors”

that

Bartlett

and

Walker

worried about related to Walker’s sexual advances.

8

were

On February 22, 2010, as part of her housekeeping
duties, Mims lifted a heavy bag of linens, causing her to
experience intense pain in her abdomen.

Realizing that

the bag was too heavy to lift on her own, Mims asked
Mills to assist her, but Mills refused.
the bag again and put it into a cart.

Mims then lifted
Mims next went to

the maintenance area where she reported the injury to
Walker, who laughed at her and took no further action.
After

experiencing

abdominal

pain

the

following

morning, Mims reported the injury to Chilton Medical
nurse

Angela

Chilton

Bachelor,

Medical’s

who

instructed

emergency

room.

her

to

During

go

to
the

examination, Mims told nurse Brenda Sherrill that she had
injured her abdomen while lifting a heavy bag.
spoke with Mills about the incident.

Sherrill

In notes taken that

day, Sherrill recorded that Mills said that she did not
witness Mims injure herself.
Because
compensation.

of

her

injury,

Mims

filed

for

worker’s

Around this time, Walker asked Mills to

9

provide a written explanation of the incident; Mills
asserted that she, not Mims, had lifted the heavy linen
bag.

Bartlett concluded upon receiving this information

that Mims had lied about her injury on the worker’s
compensation form.
2010.

Bartlett terminated Mims on March 23,

The reason given in Mims’s personnel file for her

termination was “dishonesty and inappropriate behavior to
others.”

Mims Personnel File (Doc. No. 33-5) at 2.

Shortly
hospital

thereafter,

to

meet

Mims’s

with

husband

Chilton

went

Medical

to

CEO

Richardson about Walker’s harassment of Mims.

the

Debra
Chilton

Medical and SunLink Health contend that this meeting was
their

first

notification

of

any

harassment by Walker against Mims.

potential

sexual

Bartlett denies that

Mims made any prior complaint to her about Walker’s
behavior.
Following
unemployment
completed

an

her

termination,

benefits.

On

“Employer

Mims

May

11,

Response

to

10

filed

2010,
a

for

Bartlett

Request

for

Separation Information.”

Bartlett indicated that Mims

was discharged for the following: “Several incidents of
dishonesty[.]

Getting

involved

in

Unemployment Form (Doc. No. 33-7).

starting

rumors.”

Then, on May 14,

2010, a state unemployment investigator called Bartlett
to

discuss

Mims’s

termination;

Bartlett’s

proffered

response was Mims’s involvement in a verbal altercation
with a co-worker.

Unemployment Form (Doc. No. 33-8).

Not until the June 2010 response to Mims’s filing with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did Bartlett
explicitly

cite

Mims’s

allegedly

false

worker’s

compensation filing as the ground for the termination.

III.
A.

DISCUSSION

Sexual-Harassment Claim

To establish a sexual-harassment claim under Title
VII, an employee must show that: “(1) ... he or she
belongs to a protected group; (2) ... the employee has
been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, such as

11

sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other
conduct of a sexual nature; (3) ... the harassment must
have been based on the sex of the employee; (4) ... the
harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter
the terms and conditions of employment and create a
discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5)
[there is] a basis for holding the employer liable.”
Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238, 1245 (11th Cir.
1999) (en banc).

In conducting this inquiry, courts must

be mindful that “workplace conduct cannot be viewed in
isolation, but rather is to be viewed cumulatively, and
in

its

social

context.”

Reeves

v.

C.H.

Robinson

Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798, 807 (11th Cir. 2010).
Where, as here, the harasser is a supervisor, “an
employer can be held vicariously liable if: (1) the
employee’s refusal to comply with the supervisor’s sexual
demands or overtures resulted in a tangible employment
action being taken against her; or (2) the harassment was
sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions

12

of her employment, which is known as a hostile-workenvironment

claim.”

Edwards

v.

Hyundai

Motor

Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, 603 F. Supp. 2d 1336, 1347
(M.D. Ala. 2009) (Thompson, J.).

This distinction is

crucial because there is “no affirmative defense against
a tangible-employment-action claim.”
Chilton

Medical

and

SunLink

Id.
Health

make

three

contentions for why summary judgment on this claim is
appropriate.

The court addresses each in turn.

Were Walker’s Acts Based on Mims’s Sex?

Chilton

Medical and SunLink Health submit that Walker’s behavior
was not based on Mims’s sex, but rather his behavior was
merely bothersome and annoying.
Mims has submitted sufficient evidence to create a
genuine dispute about whether Walker’s comments were
based on her sex.

Mims reports that Walker read her love

letters and said that he “wanted her,” a phrase that
standing alone carries a sexual undertone.

Tellingly,

Walker’s contact with Mims occurred outside of normal

13

working hours.

Mendoza, 195 F.3d at 1249 (finding

Cf.

that there was no sexual harassment, in part, because
“[t]here is no allegation of any staring or following
[plaintiff]

outside

the

workplace

or

of

any

calling

[plaintiff] after work”). Walker also told Mims that if
she were to leave her husband and move in with him, she
would be promoted.

A reasonable jury could conclude that

such comments and promises went beyond the bounds of a
helpful and friendly supervisor.
Was Walker’s Conduct Severe or Pervasive? Chilton
Medical and SunLink Health argue that Walker’s behavior
was neither severe nor pervasive.

Specifically, they

contend that his behavior was not physically threatening
or humiliating.

They note that he never touched Mims

inappropriately, nor did he ever make a vulgar, explicit
demand for sex.
“Harassment is severe or pervasive for Title VII
purposes only if it is both subjectively and objectively
severe and pervasive.”

Johnson v. Booker T. Washington

14

Broadcasting Service, 234 F.3d 501, 509 (11th Cir. 2000).
In determining whether conduct is objectively severe of
pervasive, courts look to the following four factors:
“(1) the frequency of the conduct; (2) the severity of
the

conduct;

threatening
utterance;

(3)
or

and

interferes

whether

the

humiliating,
(4)

with

whether

the

conduct
or

the

employee's

Mendoza, 195 F.3d at 1246.

physically

mere

a

is

offensive

conduct

unreasonably

job

performance.”

This standard is not a

“mathematically precise test” and “no single factor is
required.”

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S.

17, 22-23 (1993).
A genuine question of material fact exists as to
whether

Walker’s

environment.

conduct

created

a

hostile-work

As noted above, Mims felt intimidated by

him and thought that her job was in jeopardy if she
complained about his behavior.

Walker had told Mims that

he could protect himself against any complaints, and
Bartlett’s

cover-up

of

Walker’s

15

text

messages,

if

confirmed, would support this assertion.

Thus, Mims felt

that she had not choice but to tolerate her supervisor’s
advances.
Turning to whether the harassment was objectively
severe

or

pervasive,

Mims

evidence to reach a jury.

has

presented

sufficient

Walker’s womanizing was a

pervasive facet of Mims’s work experience.

Mims has

submitted evidence that he had a pattern of using his
supervisory authority to seduce female subordinates and
had an intimate relationship with at least one of them.
Moreover, Walker consistently targeted Mims, paging her
to his office frequently during the day and texting or
calling her at night.

See Guthrie v. Waffle House, Inc.,

2012 WL 335629, *4 (11th Cir. Feb. 3, 2012) (affirming
grant of summary judgment because offensive comments were
infrequent and spread out over an eleven-month period);
Reeves, 594 F.3d at 804 (reversing grant of summary
judgment because of obscene comments “on a daily basis”).

16

Walker’s conduct was also severe.

While it is true

that Walker did not use obscene and derogatory language,
Walker’s offer of a promotion if Mims left her husband
and moved in with him is particularly troubling.

The

offer’s bluntness underscores and informs Walker’s other
behavior

toward

Mims

and

reveals

that

otherwise

potentially innocuous acts had sexual overtones. Indeed,
Mims refused the offer and she was never promoted to
kitchen supervisors.

While “Title VII is not a civility

code,” id. at 807, it does not require a showing that
supervisors use vulgar or profane language.

Title VII

can be violated as much by a Casanova as by a Marquis de
Sade seeking sexual favors in exchange for promotions.
Walker’s

conduct

threatening to Mims.

was

humiliating

and

physically

Other employees were aware that

Walker paged Mims to his office several times a day.
Furthermore, when Walker asked Mims to return one of his
love letters, he stood between Mims and the door.

Mims

felt that she did not have a choice but to return the

17

love letter.
Walker.

Mims was also “afraid to be alone” with

Mims Affidavit (Doc. No. 33-2) at ¶ 11.

Finally, Walker’s behavior unreasonably interfered
with Mims’s job performance.

Walker’s pages to Mims to

report to his office were “for no business purpose” and
were so frequent that Mims found it difficult to complete
her daily tasks.

Id. at ¶ 23.

Co-workers confirmed the

constant paging and believed that it interfered with
Mims’s ability to do her job.

Maddox Affidavit (Doc. No.

33-3) at ¶ 11.
Given these factors, the court is convinced that Mims
has established a genuine dispute as to whether Walker’s
conduct was severe or pervasive.
May
Liable?

Chilton

Medical

and

SunLink

Health

Be

Held

Finally, Chilton Medical and SunLink Health

raise an affirmative defense that Chilton Medical had a
comprehensive sexual-harassment policy and Mims did not
utilize it.

But if an “employee’s refusal to comply with

the supervisor’s sexual demands or overtures resulted in

18

a tangible employment action being taken against her,”
there

is

employer.

no

affirmative

defense

available

to

Edwards, 603 F. Supp. 2d at 1347.

the

It is

axiomatic that Mims’s termination qualifies as a tangible
employment action.
U.S.

742,

761

Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524

(1998)

(“A

tangible

employment

action

constitutes a significant change in employment status,
such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment
with

significantly

different

responsibilities,

or

a

decision causing a significant change in benefits.”).
Here, a genuine dispute exists as to whether Mims’s
rejection

of

Walker’s

advances

“resulted

in”

her

termination. There is a close-temporal proximity between
Walker’s love letters, the negative-performance review,
the emoticon-text message, and Mims’s termination.
“rumor

mill”

complaint

cited

in

the

The

performance

evaluation concerned Mims’s comments to co-workers about
Walker’s behavior. Moreover, Mims has submitted evidence
of Bartlett’s alleged cover-up of Walker’s behavior,

19

thereby providing a link between Mims’s rebuffs of Walker
and

her

eventual

termination

by

Bartlett.

Thus,

a

reasonable jury could find that Mims’s termination was
related to her rejection of Walker’s sexual advances.

B.

Retaliation Claim

To make out a prima-facie retaliation claim under
Title VII, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) that she
engaged in statutorily protected expression; (2) that she
suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) that there
is some causal relation between the two events.”
v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361,

Thomas

1363 (11th Cir.

2007).
Chilton Medical and SunLink Health contend that Mims
did

not

because

engage
she

did

in

statutorily

not

inform

protected

Bartlett

or

expression
any

other

supervisor about Walker’s harassment until after she was
terminated.

Mims, on the other hand, contend that she

did alert Bartlett and that not only were her complaints

20

ignored, Bartlett helped conceal Walker’s harassment by
deleting the incriminating text messages.

Because there

is a genuine dispute as to this material fact, summary
judgment

for

Chilton

Medical

and

SunLink

Health

is

inappropriate.
Assuming

that

Mims

reported

Walker’s

behavior,

Chilton Medical and SunLink Health submit that there is
no causal relationship between Mims’s termination and her
complaints.
complaints

More specifically, they argue that Mims’s
to

Bartlett

occurred

in

2009,

far

too

temporally separated from her termination in March 2010.
While temporal proximity is one means of establishing
a causal relationship, “a plaintiff merely has to prove
that the protected activity and the negative employment
action are not completely unrelated.”

EEOC v. Reichhold

Chemicals, Inc., 988 F.2d 1564, 1571-72 (11th Cir. 1993).
Mims

has

established

a

dispute

as

to

whether

her

termination was in retaliation for her complaints to
Bartlett and her refusal to give into Walker’s sexual

21

overtures.

The critical handwritten notation on Mims’s

2010 performance evaluation was directly related to her
gossiping about Walker’s advances; furthermore, Bartlett
instructed Walker to make that notation on her form.
Given Mims’s allegations that Bartlett tried to cover up
Walker’s

harassment,

these

events

appear

connected.

Moreover, Mims’s negative review occurred only a month
before

she

was

interrelated

terminated.

events–-Mims’s

In

light

complaints

to

of

these

Bartlett,

Bartlett’s instruction to Walker to give Mims a negative
review,

and

Mims’s

genuine

dispute

as

ultimate
to

termination–-there

whether

there

is

a

is

a

causal

connection between Mims’s protected activity and her
termination.
Once a plaintiff establishes a prima-facie case, “the
employer

must

proffer

a

legitimate,

non-retaliatory

reason for the adverse employment action.”

Olmsted v.

Taco Bell Corp., 141 F.3d 1457, 1460 (11th Cir. 1998).
Chilton Medical and SunLink Health contend that Mims’s

22

dishonesty, gossiping, and false worker’s compensation
form satisfy this requirement; Mims does not dispute this
point.
At the final stage of the Title VII retaliation
inquiry, “[t]he plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the
reason

provided

by

the

employer

prohibited, retaliatory conduct.”
1460.

is

a

pretext

for

Olmsted, 141 F.3d at

Chilton Medical and SunLink Health assert that

Mims’s termination for lying on her worker’s compensation
form was not a pretext.
A reasonable jury could conclude that Bartlett’s
shifting explanations for Mims’s termination, starting at
a

general

criticism

of

dishonesty

and

becoming

more

specific over time as to the worker’s compensation form,
are evidence of a pretext.

See Hulbert v. St. Mary’s

Health Care System, Inc., 439 F.3d 1286, 1298 (11th Cir.
2006) (commenting that “employer's failure to articulate
clearly and consistently the reason for an employee's

23

discharge

may

serve

as

evidence

of

pretext”).

Additionally, in light of the sexual history between
Mills and Walker, a reasonable jury could also find that
the Mills lied after Walker asked her to provide a
written explanation for Mims’s injury.

C.

SunLink Health as an Employer under Title VII

It is undisputed that Chilton Medical, not SunLink
Health, was Mims’s direct employer.

But Mims contends

that SunLink Health’s status as Chilton Medical’s parent
company makes the two corporations a “single employer”
under Title VII.
“A liberal construction must be accorded to the term:
employer.”

McKenzie v. Davenport-Harris Funeral Home,

834 F.2d 930, 933 (11th Cir. 1987).

“Where two or more

corporations, such as a parent and a subsidiary, are
‘highly

integrated

with

respect

to

ownership

and

operations,’ the corporations may be viewed as a ‘single
employer’

for

purposes

of

24

establishing

Title

VII

liability.”
Supp.

2d

Thornton v. Mercantile Stores Co., 13 F.

1282,

1291

(M.D.

Ala.

1998)

(quoting McKenzie, 834 F.2d at 933).

(DeMent,

J.)

In conducting the

single-employer inquiry, courts look to several factors:
“(1) interrelation of operations, (2) centralized control
of labor relations, (3) common management, and (4) common
ownership or financial control.”

McKenzie, 834 F.2d at

933.
Courts have cited the following evidence as going to
the

whether

two

corporations

have

interrelation

of

operations: (1) unified banking operations; (2) unified
payment of vendors; (3) parent corporation’s control of
subsidiary’s budget, including setting pay rates; (4)
parent corporation’s control of senior employees of the
subsidiary;

(5)

contact

between

human

resources

departments; (6) distribution of human-resources policies
by parent corporation to subsidiary; (7) centralized
management information services; (8) centralized risk
management functions; (9) policies which allow employment

25

transfers among subsidiaries without new paperwork; (10)
centralized benefit programs such as insurance plans; and
(11)

parent

corporation

providing

training

to

the

Thornton, 13 F. Supp. 2d at

subsidiary’s employees.
1291.

There is evidence in the record establishing an
interrelation of operations between Chilton Medical and
SunLink

Health.

SunLink

Health

paid

three

Chilton

Medical chief executive officers (the CEO, COO, and CFO)
and maintained their employment files.

SunLink Health

exercised final control over Chilton Medical’s decisionmaking policies.

The interrelationship between SunLink

Health and Chilton Medical was so strong that Larry
Jeter, Chilton Medical’s chief executive officer, was
transferred

to

another

SunLink

Health

facility

in

Georgia. Bartlett also conferred with human-resources
employees

at

administrative

SunLink
control

Health.
and

26

And

policies,

with

regards

SunLink

to

Health

maintained

centralized

risk

management

services

and

worker’s compensation insurance for its subsidiaries.
Regarding labor relations, SunLink Health strived for
standardization across its hospitals.

For instance,

SunLink Health distributed human-resources policies to
its

subsidiaries,

including

Chilton

Medical.

Even

policies specific to Chilton Medical were approved by the
CEO, a SunLink employee.
As to the third factor, shared management, SunLink
Health directly paid Chilton Medical’s chief executives.
And as described above, SunLink exercised sufficient
control over Chilton Medical management personnel to
transfer one of them to another subsidiary.

Finally,

prior to March 2011 and at all times relevant to this
litigation, SunLink Health owned Chilton Medical as a
subsidiary.
SunLink

Health

asserts

that

much

of

Bartlett’s

testimony concerns SunLink Healthcare, LLC, not SunLink
Health

Systems,

Inc.,

the

27

named

defendant.

But

Bartlett’s testimony about the difference between the two
See Bartlett Deposition (Doc.

companies is ambiguous.

No. 51-1) at 12 (“Q: When you refer to Sunlink corporate,
are you referring to Sunlink Healthcare, LLC?

A: I guess

so,

Given

yes.

I

don’t

know

for

sure.”).

the

similarities in names between the two corporations and
the fact that SunLink Healthcare, LLC, is a subsidiary of
defendant

SunLink

understandable.

Health,

Bartlett’s

uncertainty

is

To the extent that there is a dispute as

to whether Chilton Medical’s relationship was closer to
SunLink Healthcare, LLC or defendant SunLink Health, this
is a genuine dispute of material fact to be resolved at
trial.
*

*

*

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motions for
summary

judgment

filed

by

defendants

SunLink

Health

Systems, Inc. (Doc. No. 27) and Chilton Medical Center
(Doc. No. 28) are denied.
DONE, this the 2nd day of March, 2012.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE