Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00504/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00504-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Cindy E. Myers,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Scottsdale Bariatric Center, et al.

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-504-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Cindy Myers was hired by the Scottsdale Bariatric Center ("Bariatric Center") in

Scottsdale, Arizona as a billing manager. The following year, on September 27, 2003, she

was diagnosed with lymphocytic leukemia, a form of cancer. On October 4, 2003, she began

treatment at a hospital in Houston, Texas. Within two weeks, the Bariatric Center terminated

her employment. She then filed this action, alleging that the Bariatric Center and Robin

Blackstone, M.D., its founder, sole shareholder and president, are liable for violations of the

Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the Arizona Civil Rights Act ("ACRA"), and for

the intentional infliction of emotional distress. We have before us defendants' motion for

summary judgment (doc. 34), the response and the reply.

I

For an employer to be subject to the provisions of either the ADA or the ACRA, the

employer must employ more than 15 employees. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5); A.R.S. § 41-

1461(4)(a). The purpose of this restriction on applicability "is not to encourage or condone

Case 2:05-cv-00504-FJM Document 43 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 These factors are applicable to the ADA, and it is undisputed that they are likewise

applicable to the ACRA. Therefore we assume without deciding that the analysis pursuant

to the ADA is applicable to the ACRA.

- 2 -

discrimination; . . . [it] is to spare very small firms from the potentially crushing expense of

mastering the intricacies of the antidiscrimination laws, establishing procedures to assure

compliance, and defending against suits when efforts at compliance fail." Papa v. Katy

Indus., Inc., 166 F.3d 937, 940 (7th Cir. 1999). The Bariatric Center did not employ more

than 15 employees during the requisite period. Plaintiff contends, however, that the Bariatric

Center is integrated with Scottsdale Healthcare Shea Hospital ("Scottsdale Healthcare"), and

that together, the unit employs more than 15 employees.

We consider four factors in determining whether two entities are sufficiently

integrated for purposes of the ADA and the ACRA: 1) interrelation of operations, 2)

common management, 3) centralized control of labor relations, and 4) common ownership

or financial control.1

 Kang v. U. Lim Am., Inc., 296 F.3d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 2002); Swallows

v. Barnes & Noble Book Stores, Inc., 128 F.3d 990, 993-94 (6th Cir. 1997). "None of these

factors is conclusive, and all four need not be met in every case." Swallows, 128 F.3d at 994.

However, centralized control of labor relations is the "most critical" factor. Kang, 296 F.3d

at 815 (quoting Hukill v. Auto Care, Inc., 192 F.3d 437, 442 (4th Cir. 1999)). Accordingly,

"[i]t has been said that the 'integrated employer' test instructs a court to determine what entity

made the final decisions regarding employment matters related to the person claiming

discrimination." Hukill, 192 F.3d at 444 (quotation omitted).

The relationship between the Bariatric Center and Scottsdale Healthcare is largely

undisputed. The Bariatric Center has the exclusive right to provide surgeons for bariatric

surgery at Scottsdale Healthcare. Scottsdale Healthcare provides everything else associated

with the surgery including facilities, equipment, support staff and record keeping. Because

the entities provide interdependent services for bariatric patients, their work is largely

cooperative. For example, they attempt to ensure that they accept the same insurance plans,

there is a phone number at the hospital where a caller can get information on the Bariatric

Case 2:05-cv-00504-FJM Document 43 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Defendants do not dispute these facts, but object to their evidentiary basis. The

evidentiary objections are fruitless. Furthermore, the objections are moot because defendants

prevail despite our consideration of the disputed evidence.

3

 Blackstone emphasizes that she holds that position in her individual, rather than

corporate, capacity. However, the import of this distinction is unclear here, where she is the

founder, sole shareholder and president of Scottsdale Bariatric.

- 3 -

Center, and they have participated in joint marketing campaigns.2

 The cooperation is

undoubtedly aided by Blackstone's role as the medical director for Scottsdale Healthcare

bariatric services, where she is "responsible for the over-all direction and coordination of

professional medical care within Bariatric Services,"3

 DSOF, Exhibit 1.B. at 47, and by her

role as the subcommittee chair of Scottsdale Healthcare bariatric surgery. However, the two

entities handle their own accounting systems, bank accounts, lines of credit and taxes. And,

there is no overlap among the officers or members of the Boards of Directors. Therefore, the

operations and the management of the two entities are substantially, but not entirely,

interrelated.

There is, however, a discrete divide between the two entities. The Bariatric Center

is an independent contractor for Scottsdale Healthcare. Neither entity controls the other.

Each entity is solely responsible for the hiring, firing, promotion and discipline of its

employees; that is, Scottsdale Healthcare played no role in the allegedly discriminatory

termination. Therefore, there is no common ownership or financial control, and most

critically, no centralization of labor relations. For these reasons, we cannot conclude that the

Bariatric Center and Scottsdale Healthcare are integrated, and therefore, relief cannot be

granted upon Myers' ADA and ACRA claims.

II

When Myers learned that she had cancer, she alerted Blackstone, and then relocated

to Texas to begin cancer treatment. Meyers and Blackstone exchanged a few emails which

suggested that Meyers would continue her work, and that Blackstone would hire another

employee to provide support until she recovered. However, within a few days of those

Case 2:05-cv-00504-FJM Document 43 Filed 07/07/06 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

emails, Meyers received a certified letter informing her that she had been discharged.

Because Blackstone is a former cancer specialist, Myers concluded that Blackstone's sudden

about-face meant that Blackstone believed that she would soon die from the cancer. Myers

further contends that Blackstone knew that her actions would cause Myers to believe that she

was going to die soon. Accordingly, Myers claims that Blackstone is liable for the

intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED").

"[A] determination that [an employment] discharge was lawful eliminates an [IIED]

cause of action based upon the wrongfulness of that discharge." Sees v. KTUC, Inc., 148

Ariz. 366, 369, 714 P.2d 859, 862 (Ct. App. 1985) (quoting Daniel v. Magma Copper Co.,

127 Ariz. 320, 324, 620 P.2d 699, 703 (Ct. App. 1980)). Defendants contend that if we

dismiss the ADA and ACRA claims, then the discharge is lawful, and therefore we must

grant summary judgment on the IIED claim. Myers fails to address this argument, and does

not claim that her discharge was otherwise unlawful. Myers therefore cannot prevail on the

IIED claim based upon the mere fact that she was discharged. However, Myers' claim is

different; it hangs upon the means by which she was discharged.

To state an IIED claim, a plaintiff must show that by extreme and outrageous conduct,

a defendant intentionally or recklessly caused her severe emotional distress. Ford v. Revlon,

Inc., 153 Ariz. 38, 43, 734 P.2d 580, 585 (1987). The offending act must be "so outrageous

in character and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and

to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Mintz v. Bell

Atl. Sys. Leasing Int'l, Inc., 183 Ariz. 550, 554, 905 P.2d 559, 563 (Ct. App. 1995) (quotation

omitted).

This case is analogous in all material ways to Mintz. There, Tina Mintz was

hospitalized for severe emotional and psychological problems; her physician recommended

that she not immediately return to work; her employer knew of that admonition; her employer

nonetheless directed her to return to work; the stress of the job forced her back into the

hospital; and her employer then delivered a letter to her in the hospital informing her that her

job duties were reassigned. Id. The Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that because her

Case 2:05-cv-00504-FJM Document 43 Filed 07/07/06 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

employer had a legitimate business purpose in seeing Mintz's work completed, "the bare fact

that [it] called Mintz back to work sooner than her doctor recommended or . . . hand

delivered a letter to Mintz in the hospital cannot be regarded as 'atrocious and utterly

intolerable in a civilized community,' even in light of Mintz's known susceptibility to

emotional problems." Id. Myers does not distinguish Mintz, and we cannot. Therefore,

although Blackstone's conduct was undoubtedly callous, it cannot subject her to liability on

this claim.

III

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion for summary

judgment (doc. 34). All claims having been decided, the clerk is directed to enter final

judgment for defendants.

DATED this 6th day of July, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-00504-FJM Document 43 Filed 07/07/06 Page 5 of 5