Employment-At-Will Affirmed Again

The New York Court of Appeals has once again rejected an effort to limit the employment-at-will doctrine in New York, ever so slightly, when it rejected a claim by a physician working for The New York Times that she was inappropriately required to disclose patient medical records in violation of state law, her code of ethical conduct, and various state and federal regulations. Horn v. New York Times, 2003 WL 443259 (N.Y. 2/25/03)

Dr. Sheila Horn was Associate Medical Director of the newspaper's Medical Department. Horn alleged that she was frequently directed by the Times' Legal, Human Resources, and Labor Relations Departments to disclose confidential medical records of employees without the employees' consent. She also claimed that she was instructed to misinform the Times' employees that their on-the-job injuries were not work-related, thereby minimizing the newspaper's workers' compensation claims.

Dr. Horn contacted the State Department of Health and other authorities, and contends that she was advised that these acts violated various laws, ethical provisions, and regulations. For this reason, Horn disregarded the directions she received and refused to share medical records with non-medical staff personnel. Soon thereafter, she was laid off as part of a restructuring of the Times Medical Department.

Dr. Horn alleged that her employment agreement with the Times “implied the fundamental understanding, which requires no written expression, that the physician will conduct her practice on the employer's behalf in accordance with the ethical standards of the medical profession.” She sought to bring her claim within the limited exception to the at-will doctrine recognized by the Court of Appeals in Weider v. Skala, 80 N.Y.2d 628 (1992), in which the court implied an obligation on the part of a law firm not to require a lawyer in its employ to violate an ethical rule essential to the self-regulation of the legal profession. In Weider, the attorney alleged that he was discharged when he sought to have his law firm report the misconduct of another lawyer in the firm to the Disciplinary Committee.

The Times moved to dismiss, alleging that Dr. Horn's claim did not come within the limited protection afforded by Weider. The Court of Appeals agreed and granted the newspaper's motion.

However, the court was careful to distinguish and limit the Weider holding, which it characterized as raising a “unique confluence of specific, related factors” not present in this case. The court pointed out that whatever medical care Dr. Horn provided to employees was at the direction of her employer. In contrast, the legal services provided by the attorney in Weider was principally for the law firm's clients. Next, the court found that the laws, regulations, and ethical provisions at issue relating to the disclosure of medical records were not central to Dr. Horn's activities for her employer. Moreover, in contrast to the disciplinary rule invoked in Weider, the obligations at issue here were not related to professional self-regulation. The court also emphasized that the Times and Dr. Horn were not involved in “a common professional enterprise” and that the obligations cited by Dr. Horn were not mutual, as was the case in Weider.

Finally, the court reiterated its unwillingness to recognize the tort of wrongful discharge.

Judge Smith, the lone dissenter, concluded that Dr. Horn's claim fell well within the Weider exception and could find “[n]o sound reason … to preclude termination of a lawyer in Weider while leaving without a remedy a doctor whose job it is to protect the physical and mental well-being of individuals.”

For Appellant New York Times, Bernard M. Plum, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York.

For Appellee Dr. Horn, Pearl Zuchlewski, Goodman & Zuchlewski LLP New York.

The New York Court of Appeals has once again rejected an effort to limit the employment-at-will doctrine in New York, ever so slightly, when it rejected a claim by a physician working for The New York Times that she was inappropriately required to disclose patient medical records in violation of state law, her code of ethical conduct, and various state and federal regulations. Horn v. New York Times, 2003 WL 443259 (N.Y. 2/25/03)

Dr. Sheila Horn was Associate Medical Director of the newspaper's Medical Department. Horn alleged that she was frequently directed by the Times' Legal, Human Resources, and Labor Relations Departments to disclose confidential medical records of employees without the employees' consent. She also claimed that she was instructed to misinform the Times' employees that their on-the-job injuries were not work-related, thereby minimizing the newspaper's workers' compensation claims.

Dr. Horn contacted the State Department of Health and other authorities, and contends that she was advised that these acts violated various laws, ethical provisions, and regulations. For this reason, Horn disregarded the directions she received and refused to share medical records with non-medical staff personnel. Soon thereafter, she was laid off as part of a restructuring of the Times Medical Department.

Dr. Horn alleged that her employment agreement with the Times “implied the fundamental understanding, which requires no written expression, that the physician will conduct her practice on the employer's behalf in accordance with the ethical standards of the medical profession.” She sought to bring her claim within the limited exception to the at-will doctrine recognized by the Court of Appeals in Weider v. Skala , 80 N.Y.2d 628 (1992), in which the court implied an obligation on the part of a law firm not to require a lawyer in its employ to violate an ethical rule essential to the self-regulation of the legal profession. In Weider, the attorney alleged that he was discharged when he sought to have his law firm report the misconduct of another lawyer in the firm to the Disciplinary Committee.

The Times moved to dismiss, alleging that Dr. Horn's claim did not come within the limited protection afforded by Weider. The Court of Appeals agreed and granted the newspaper's motion.

However, the court was careful to distinguish and limit the Weider holding, which it characterized as raising a “unique confluence of specific, related factors” not present in this case. The court pointed out that whatever medical care Dr. Horn provided to employees was at the direction of her employer. In contrast, the legal services provided by the attorney in Weider was principally for the law firm's clients. Next, the court found that the laws, regulations, and ethical provisions at issue relating to the disclosure of medical records were not central to Dr. Horn's activities for her employer. Moreover, in contrast to the disciplinary rule invoked in Weider, the obligations at issue here were not related to professional self-regulation. The court also emphasized that the Times and Dr. Horn were not involved in “a common professional enterprise” and that the obligations cited by Dr. Horn were not mutual, as was the case in Weider.

Finally, the court reiterated its unwillingness to recognize the tort of wrongful discharge.

Judge Smith, the lone dissenter, concluded that Dr. Horn's claim fell well within the Weider exception and could find “[n]o sound reason … to preclude termination of a lawyer in Weider while leaving without a remedy a doctor whose job it is to protect the physical and mental well-being of individuals.”

For Appellant New York Times, Bernard M. Plum, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York.

For Appellee Dr. Horn, Pearl Zuchlewski, Goodman & Zuchlewski LLP New York.