Gustilo v. Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc.

Background

Dr. Tara Gustilo worked for Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc. and served as chair of its Obstetrics and Gynecology Department. During 2020, she expressed opposition to critical race theory and certain positions concerning racial justice, police defunding, and related political issues. She did so in workplace communications, a letter concerning materials for an Hennepin Healthcare Board retreat, and public Facebook activity. Department physicians and staff also raised concerns about her leadership, workplace conversations, social-media posts, and limited presence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hennepin Healthcare investigated the department’s problems. An outside organization interviewed Gustilo and 13 other department staff members and reported broad dissatisfaction with her leadership. Hennepin Healthcare later suspended her from performing her chair duties, and a medical committee voted to demote her. The Hennepin Healthcare Board adopted that decision on April 28, 2021.

Claims and Summary-Judgment Standard

Gustilo brought five claims: (1) racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) retaliation under Title VII; (3) First Amendment retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (4) racial discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act; and (5) reprisal under that Act. Hennepin Healthcare moved for summary judgment on all claims. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Racial Discrimination Claims

The court granted summary judgment on the Title VII and Minnesota Human Rights Act race-discrimination claims. Gustilo alleged that, as a Filipina woman, she was expected to hold particular views about race and was treated adversely because she did not hold those views. The court held that she did not show how her race was connected to the demotion. The record did not show that Hennepin Healthcare required people of color to hold any particular beliefs.

The court also concluded that treating employees differently because of their political beliefs would not establish race discrimination under Title VII. Gustilo’s replacement by a white woman did not provide sufficient evidence because Gustilo did not identify similarly situated employees who shared her views and were treated more favorably. The court therefore held that Gustilo did not establish the initial showing required for an inference of race discrimination.

Retaliation and Reprisal Claims

The court granted summary judgment on Gustilo’s Title VII retaliation and Minnesota Human Rights Act reprisal claims. These laws protect an employee who opposes an employment practice that the law forbids, including unlawful discrimination. The court found that Gustilo’s July 18, 2020 email about political bias in Board retreat materials was too disconnected from an employment practice. The court also found that her October 9, 2020 email did not identify a workplace practice connected to race, gender, or another protected characteristic.

Gustilo also said she objected during discussions about a proposed culturally congruent care program, which she believed was becoming a segregated care model. The court did not decide whether that communication was protected activity because Gustilo presented no evidence that Hennepin Healthcare managers responsible for her demotion knew, or reasonably should have known, about her objections. Without that knowledge, the court found no causal connection between the objections and the demotion.

First Amendment Claim

The court granted summary judgment on Gustilo’s First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983. Hennepin Healthcare argued that it could not be held responsible under the municipal-liability doctrine established in Monell v. Department of Social Services because the Hennepin Healthcare Board was the final policymaker and did not rely on Gustilo’s Facebook posts.

The court agreed that Gustilo failed to create a genuine factual dispute about whether the Board considered or knew about her Facebook posts when approving the demotion. The memorandum supporting the Board’s decision did not mention those posts or Gustilo’s workplace political conversations, and the record did not show that the posts were discussed at the Board meeting. The court stated that a jury could find Board consideration of the posts only through speculation. Because the court found no basis for liability under the municipal-liability doctrine, it did not decide whether the Facebook posts were protected speech.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted Hennepin Healthcare’s Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety on all five claims. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.