Verdicts

Independent Contractors

Hospital's control over doctor may defeat its claim that she was an independent contractor. Salamon v. Our Lady of Victory Hospital, 06-1707-cv (2nd Cir., Jan. 16, 2008).

Plaintiff physician held hospital staff privileges. In dismissing her claims of sexual harassment by a co-worker and retaliation by the hospital's administrator, the district court held that the plaintiff was an independent contractor and could not pursue her claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York Human Rights Law. The appellate court vacated summary judgment, and remanded the plaintiff's case after finding factual issues as to her employment status. Discussing the factors outlined in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, the panel held that the district court overemphasized the plaintiff's professional independence as to diagnosing and treating patients, and that the defendant hospital exercised substantial control over the treatment outcomes of the plaintiff's practice as well as over the details and methods of her work. The hospital also exercised control over the plaintiff's choices of medications to prescribe “not in the interest of medical judgment, but to maximize hospital profit.”

Independent Contractors

Hospital's control over doctor may defeat its claim that she was an independent contractor. Salamon v. Our Lady of Victory Hospital, 06-1707-cv (2nd Cir., Jan. 16, 2008).

Plaintiff physician held hospital staff privileges. In dismissing her claims of sexual harassment by a co-worker and retaliation by the hospital's administrator, the district court held that the plaintiff was an independent contractor and could not pursue her claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York Human Rights Law. The appellate court vacated summary judgment, and remanded the plaintiff's case after finding factual issues as to her employment status. Discussing the factors outlined in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, the panel held that the district court overemphasized the plaintiff's professional independence as to diagnosing and treating patients, and that the defendant hospital exercised substantial control over the treatment outcomes of the plaintiff's practice as well as over the details and methods of her work. The hospital also exercised control over the plaintiff's choices of medications to prescribe “not in the interest of medical judgment, but to maximize hospital profit.”