### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Ma rch 8, 2005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1509 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 02-00106 -CV -W BH- 1 BRIAN M ORRIS , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us EMORY CLINIC , INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 8, 200 5) Be fo re BL A CK , P RY O R and G O D BO L D , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

This is an em

ploym ent discrim ination case brought by a m ale doctor, an obst etri ci ana nd g yne co log ist , a ga ins t hi s e m plo y er , am ed ic al sc hool c lin ic , f or ag e an d se x di sc ri m inatio n. T he doc tor c la im s th e uni ve rs ity

c lin ic f ir ed him because it favored y oung er f em ale doctors. T he clinic asserts that the doctor was term inated as a re sult of patient com plaints con cerning his forceful phy sical ex am inatio ns and o ff

-c olo r re m ar

ks h e m ad e on the abil ity of old er pa tie nts to ha ve c hil dr en . T he dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d su m m ar y j udge m en t f

or the uni ve rs ity cl in ic . W e aff

irm. Dr . B rian Morris’ tenure w ith Em ory University

School of Medicine began in 1 995 w he n he w as appoi nte d to the f ac ulty a s an a ssi stant p ro fe sso r. A lon g w ithhis f ac ulty appoi ntm en t M or

ri s w as to w ork a s an ob ste tr ic ian and gy ne co log ist

a t on e of the U niv er sity ’ s C lin ic loc at ion s aro und the A tlanta m etro pol itan are a. Mo rr is i nit ia lly w as a ssi gne d to the Cl ini c’ s lo catio n inne ar by Fay ette vil le , G eo rg ia . H is e m plo ym en t w as sub

j ec t t o te rm inatio n by

the U niv er sity

f or a ny r ea son upon90 d ay s w ri tte n no tic e. H is s upe rv iso r at the Cl ini c w as D r. P en ny

Ca ste llano who h ea de d th e Cl ini c’ s ob ste tr ic s and gyneco lo gy sect io n. In 2000 th e U niversity

closed its Fay etteville Clinic location for financial re as ons. Mo rr is w as r ea ssi gne d to the Cl ini c’ s C raw fo rd L ong loc at ion , alarg e3

facility in Midtown Atlanta nam ed after a prom inent Georgia phy sician. H e w as al so ass ig ne d t o p erfo rm

“ ba ckup ” dut ie s at th e Cl in ic lo cat io n o n C li fto n R oa d. T he Cl if tonRo ad f ac ili ty w as loc at ed

asho rt dis tanc e aw ay

f ro m Cr aw fo rd

L ong on the U niv er sity ’ s M ed ic al S ch ool c am pus. Mo rr is a sse rt s – w ith out e xpl an at ion – th at the Cl if tonRo ad loc at ionw as f

av or ab le to Cr aw fo rd

L ong. Mo rr is subm itted evidence that the Clinic ensured that bo th fem ale and m ale doctors we re loc at ed a t the Cl if

tonRo ad loc at ion . O ne a dm ini str at or spe cu la te d th at

ar ea son f o r b a l a n c i n g th e ma l e t o f

e ma l e p h ys i c i a n r a t i o a taC l i n i c l o c a t i o n w a s th a ts o me fe m al e pa tie nts m igh t pr ef er to se e fe m al e gy

ne co log ist s. B oththe Cr aw fo rd L ong an d C li fto n R oa d l oc at io ns ha d m al e an d fe m al e d oc to rs . A ft er Mo rr is m ove d to Cr aw fo rd L ong, he r ec ei ve d ase ri es of pa tie nt co m pla int s th at

a lle ge d he c ondu ct ed

f or ce fu l ph y sic al e xa m inatio ns and m ad e dis para gin g r em ar

ks t o patie nts ove r 40 s ee kin g to have c hil dr en . I n M ar ch200 0 a pa tie nt c al le d th e Cl ini c to c om pla in tha t, in re spon se to he r que sti on whe the r the ex am inatio n of

he r ce rv ix w oul d hurt , Mo rr is “ dug his na ils int o he r an kle a nd as ke d he r w ha t sh e w oul d say if som ethin g hurt . ” A s M or ri s’ sup er vis or Ca ste llano w as c harg ed

w ithinv es tig at ing thi s c om pla int . S he m et

w ithMo rr is t o dis cu ss the inc ide nt and i nf orm ed him that sh e w oul d r ai se the m atte r w ithCl ini c ad m in is tra ti on pe rs on ne l.4

InD ec em be r 2000 a nothe r pa tie nt wro te ale tte r cr iti ci zi ng the “ fo rc ef ul” an d “ ro ugh m an ne r” in w hic h M or ri s c ondu ct ed

he r ex am inatio n. S he a lso described several off

-color re m arks Morris m ade about her chances f or pregnancy giv enhe r ag e. T he pa tie nt wro te that M or ri s to ld h er

“ the r ea lit ie s are that y ou have 42-y ear- old eggs , which m eans that it will be difficult for y ou to g et pregnant.” W

hen she inform ed him

that another phy sician in W ashingt on, D .C. ha d su cc es s w ithpr eg nanc ie s inw om enove r the a ge of 40, Mo rr is r et orte d “ it doe s no t c hange the statis tic s th at y ou o nly have a50% c hanc e of

ge tti ng pr eg nant. ” Mo rr is r ec om m en de d th e pa tie nt s ee af er til ity c lin ic to pot en tia lly qualify to rece ive an egg from

a y oung er f

em ale. T he patient wrote in her letter that sh e fe lt Mor

ri s ha d an un de rl y ing r es en tm en t of w om enw ho c hose to po stpo ne m ot he rh oo d i n fa vo r of pu rs ui ng a care er. A ft er r ec ei vin g th e le tte r Ca ste llano and P au l H am m onds , A dm ini str at or

of Pr im ar y Care , m et

w ithMo rr is t o di sc uss the pa tie nt’ s c om pla int s. D ur ing thi s m eet in g C as te ll an o re qu es te d t ha t M orris writ e a l et te r of ap ol og y to th e p at ie nt . Castellano also sug gested Morris view a video on patient care and advise her after he had viewed the tape. Aletter of a polo gy wa s drafted by

Castellano and signed b y M o rr i s . M o rr i s co n ce d ed th at h e may ha v e b ee n “ l es s s en s i t i v e t o th e w o m an ’s ne ed s th at

day ” but f el t tha t the pa tie nt h ad

“ ove rr ea ct ed . ” T he ta

pe w as la te r se nt5

to M or ri s’ r es ide nc e w ithw ha t M or ri s vi ew ed

a s athr eate nin g no te w hic h he interpreted to m ean “ fly

straight or y ou are going to be fire d.” Morris never rep or te d t o C as te ll an o t ha t h e h advi ewedth e tape . A ro und the sam e pe ri od the Cl ini c soug ht t o in cr ea se the num be r of phy sic ians o n st af

f. I n F eb ru ar

y 200 1 th e Cl ini c m ad e a j ob o ff er to D r. L es lie Ch oy -H ee , af

em al e phy sic ian inthe r es ide nc e pr ogr am a t the U niv er sity ’ s S ch ool of Me dic ine . T he Cl ini c al so e xte nde d an of fe r to D r. T odd Ba shuk , am al e res id en t i n t he same pro gr am . T w o m onths l at er , in Apr il 2001 , a nothe r pa tie nt c om pla ine d a bout Mo rr is’ harsh treatm ent of her during a phy sical exam ination which she char acter ized as

“ degrading.” T he patient com plained that Morris had an “ anim ositytowar d wom en” and that his ph y sical exam ination wa s “ unnecessarily force ful com

pared to oth er pelvic exam s she has had.” S he wa s ten wee ks pregnant and com plained that because she wa s 39 y ears old, had e xperienced one m iscarria ge, and an ovari anc y st, Mo rr is i nf

orm ed he r that sh e w as the pe rf ec t c an did at e fo r fo llo w -u p with a m id-wife . When she expressed opp ositio n to thi s idea he inform ed her that

“ this is n ot y our call.” A s e vid en ce of

the unn ec es sary

f or ce use d duri ng the e xa m inatio n th e patient stated that sh e had been instructed by an assistant not to rem ove her bra6

prior to the exam ination . When Morris entered the exam ination room , how ever, and discov ered the patient w as we aring a bra, he becam e upset and “ ripped it over her head. ” Morr is disp uted that he ripped off the patient’ s bra and speculated that he m ay have a ssi ste d he r if

she appe ar ed

to be str uggl ing w ithr em ovi ng i t. T his pa tie nt a lso c om

pla ine d th at

dur ing the Apr il vis it Mor ri s ne gle ct ed

to lis te n f

or the fetal heartbeat as w as custom arily done by an obstetrician. Afewday s after he r ex am inatio n sh e suf

fe re d am isc ar

ri ag e an d w as tol d by

a n e xa m ini ng ph y si ci an th atth e fet us was p ro babl y de adwhen sh e was ex am in edby Morr is . T he phy sic ian no te d th at

if Mo rr is h ad

li ste ne d f

or the he ar tbe at he w oul d have de te ct edth e p ro bl em . H er c om pla int how ev er w as not li m ite d to Mo rr is. T he pa tie nt a lso co m pla ine d th at

a ft er he r ex am inatio n by

Mo rr is, w hil e she w as out of town sh e called the Clinic for a

ref erra l for her sister’ s obst etrician and spoke with Dr . Je ssi ca A rl uc k. T he pa tie nt thoug ht s he w as havin g am isc ar ri ag e an d di d no t w an t t o go to the e m er ge nc y r oom . S he f

el t tha t A rl uc k w as ins en sit ive be ca use she r es pond ed

to he r re que st f

or ar ef er ra l w ith“ no –

I ’ m a t ho m e, e ith er

c al l the o ff i ce o r yo u r i n s u ra n ce co m p an y.” Th e C l i n i c d i dn o tv i ew th e p at i en t ’s co m pla int a ga ins t A rl uc k inthe sam e lig ht a s he r al le ga tio ns a ga ins t M or ri s.7

Ca ste llano w as a larm ed

by the a lle ga tio n c onc er

nin g th e br a an d su gge sti on that the pa tie nt s ee am idw if e ag ai nst he r w ish es – part ic ularl y in lig ht o f the pr ior co m pla int s. S he be gan di sc uss ing f ir ing Mo rr is w iththe oth er phy sic ians at the Cl ini c inc lud ing D r. A rl uc k. A rl uc k vo lun te er ed that sh e “ w an te d [ Mor

ri s] out of the pr ac tic e” be ca

use of the c ont inu ing pr obl em

w ithMo rr is’ tr eatm en t of his patients. She indicated that the practice group at the Clinic would rather w ork harder than have Morr is dam age the re putatio n of the Clinic. InMay 200 1 C as te llano and H am m onds m et

w ithMo rr is and i nf

orm ed him that he w as be ing pla ce d ona dm ini str at ive le av e. Mo rr is unde rs too d th at thi s ac tio n w as und er

take n so that the Cl ini c co uld c ondu ct a n in ve sti ga tio n in to the co m pla int s. H e m ai nta ins that he w as not pr ovi de d w ithspe ci fi c de ta ils of the undergarm ent incident. Following this m eeting a letter w as sent to Morris. I t s t a t e dth a tM o rr i s wa s p l a c e d“ o n a n Ad mi n i s t r a t i v e Le a v e o f Ab s e n c e ( w i t h p a y) pe ndi ng f urthe r inv es tig at ion . ” A ft er the m ee tin g C as te llano s poke w ithdif fe re nt phy sic ians and a dm ini str at or s r eg ar din g th e co m pla int s a ga ins t M or

ri s and h is tre at m en t o f hi s p at ie nt s. Two week s l at er Ca st el la no an d Hamm on ds m etwit h M orris ag ai n. A cc or din g to the m , dur ing thi s m ee tin g th ey pr es en te d M or

ri s w itha n ov er

vie wof the tw o m ost

r ec en t c om

pla int s a ga ins t hi m

a nd p ro vid ed

him w itha n op portun ity8

to r eb ut any

of the a lle ga tio ns. Mo rr is s ay s th at thi s m ee tin g di d no t pr ovi de a ny m eanin gf ul o ppor tun ity to ex plo re the a lle ga tio ns and tha t he did not c om m en t on the c om pla int s a t the m ee tin g. C as te llano o ff er ed Mo rr is the opt ionof

r es ign ing rathe r than havin g th e Cl ini c te rm inate his e m plo ym en t. Mo rr is o pte d no t t o re sig n. A s ac onse que nc e, Ca ste llano s en t M or ri s ale tte r da te d M ay

25, 200 1 pr ovi din g hi m

w ith90 d ay s no tic e of

his te rm inatio n purs uant t o th e em plo ym en t agreem ent. I t stated that Morris’ em ploym ent with the Clinic wa s term inated ef fe ct ive A ugus t 23 , 200 1 and tha t he w oul d r em ai n ona dm ini str at ive le av e unt il that date. Until this tim e he w ouldcontinu e to rec eive his salary but could not see an y pa ti en ts at t he Cli ni c. D ur ing the sum

m er of 200 1 bo th B as huk an d C hoy -H ee a cc ep te d th ei r em plo ym en t of

fe rs a nd b eg anw orkin g a t the Cl ini c. C hoy -H ee start ed on Augus t 1, 2001, over tw o m onth s after Morris’ discharge. She split her tim e betwe en C r a w f o r dL o n g a n dC l i f

t o n R o a d . M o rr i s c o n t e n d s th a tth e ma j o r i t y o f h e r t i me w as spe nt at C lif

tonRo ad . B as huk be gan w orkin g onJul y 15, 200 1. H e al so pr ac tic ed a t C lif tonRo ad a nd anothe r fa ci lity , the P er im et er loc at ion . T he Pe ri m et er loc at ionla te r cl ose d be ca use the U niv er sity

downsi ze d th e num

be r of Clinic locations . For a br ief period following the closure Bashuk worked at Cl if tonRo ad be fo re he ult im at el y

r es ign ed .9

A ft er his te rm inatio n M or

ri s su ed the Cl ini c fo r em

plo y m en t di sc ri m inatio n unde r fe de ra l and s ta te lawinc lud ing T itl e V II a nd the A ge D isc ri m inatio n in E m plo ym en t A ct

( A D E A ). H e co nte nds that the Cl ini c dis cr im inate d a ga ins t hi m on the basis of both his sex and age w hen it term inated his em ploym ent and hired Choy -H ee, a y oung er f

em ale. H e also avers that the Clinic re spon ded m ore aggressively

to patient com

plaints agains t him

because he w as an older m ale than it did to sim ilar co m

pla int s a ga ins t othe r y oung er f em al e phy sic ians. T he co m pl ai nt s h e id en ti fie d h owe ve r ge ne ral ly inv ol ve d a dm in is tra ti ve fai lu res (e.g ., fa ilure to re tur

n ph one c al ls, la ck

of pr om ptn es s ine xa m ini ng a

pa tie nt, dif

fi cu lty in o bta ini ng an a

ppoi ntm en t) or

a lle ga tio ns o f ne gli ge nc e in c onne ct ionw itha m edical procedure. A m ag istrate j udge in a de ta ile d and l en gth y or de r iss ue d ar ep ort and r e c o mme n d a t i o ng r a n t i n g s u mmary j u d g me n tt o th e C l i n i c o n th e f e d e r a l c l a i ms and dism issin g the state claim s. T he m agistrate j udge held th at Choy -H ee w as hir ed f or adif fe re nt l oc at iona nd the re fo re did not r ep la ce Mo rr is. H e al so h el d that M or ri s f ai le d to ide nti fy

sim ilar co m

pla int s lo dge d a ga ins t othe r phy sic ians w ho w er e tr eate d f

av or ab ly c om pare d to him . Mo rr is o bj ec te d to the m ag istrate j udge ’ s or de r. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a gr ee d w iththe m ag istrate j udge a nd a dopt ed his r e p o rta n dr e c o mme n d a t i o n . T h i s ap p e a l f o l l o w e d . We a f

f i rm.10

W e rev ie w de novo a district court’ s order granting a m otion for sum m ary j udgm en t and c onstru e “ al l r ea sona ble doubts about

the f ac ts i n f av or of the non m ovant.” Br owning v. Pey ton, 918 F.2d 1516 , 1520 (11th Cir. 1990). S umm ary j udgm en t i s on ly

appr opr ia te w he re “ the ple ad ing s, de posi tio ns, a nsw er s to int er ro ga tor ie s, a nd a dm iss ion s onf ile , tog ethe r w iththe a ff

idavit s, if a ny , sho w that the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to a ny m at er ia l f

ac t and tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is entitled to a judgm ent as a m atter of law. ” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56(c) . D isc ri m inatio n onthe ba sis of a n in div idu al ’ s se x or

a ge is unl aw fu l. 42 U. S. C. § 200 0e-2; 29 U. S. C. § 623 (a). T he critical question for us is whether Mor ri s c re at ed

age nui ne iss ue of

m at er ia l f

ac t c onc er

nin g w he the r his te rm inatio n was lawf ul . See Wrig ht v. So ut hl an d C or p., 1 87 F.3d 12 87 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Put differ ently , did the Clinic discrim inate against Morris on the basis of his sex or a ge o r w e r e i t s a c t i on s t he l a w f ul r e su l to f

p a t i e nt c om pl a i nt s? As we h el d i n Wrig ht Mo rri s ca n a vo idsu m m ary jud gm en t i n o ne of t wo way s. S ee id. at 1290. H e can use the tra ditio nal fram ew ork and use direct ev ide nc e to c re at e a tr ia

ble iss ue of

w he the r he w as f

ir ed or tr eate d le ss f

av or ab ly because he w as an older m ale. Se e id. at 1291 -92. D irect e vidence is “ evidence, that, if be lie ve d, pr ove s [ the ] e xis te nc e of [ a] f ac t w ith out

inf er en ce or presum ption .” W ilson v. B/E Ae rospace, Inc. , 376 F. 3d 10 79, 1086 (11t h Cir.11

2004 ) (i nte rn al c itatio n om itt ed ). O r he c anuse the Mc D onne ll D ougl as Co rp . v. Green , 41 1 U.S. 7 92 , 80 2 (1 97 3) fram ewo rk . Mc D onne ll D ougl as pla ce s abur de n of pr oduc tio n onthe Cl ini c if Mo rr is can sh owthat he w as te rm inate d or tr eate d le ss f

av or ab ly be ca use of his a ge or sex. S ee S t. Mary ’ s Honor Ctr. v. H icks, 509 U. S. 502, 506-7 (199 3). Our inquiry unde r Mc D onne ll D ougl as c onsi sts of thr ee ste ps. F ir st, Mo rr is m ust f ir st p re se nt ev ide nc e that he w as qua lif ie d to w ork a t the Cl ini c an d th at he los t hi s po sit ionto, or wa s otherwise tre ated less favorably than a y oung er f

em ale phy sician. S ee Wri ght , 187 F . 3d at 12 90- 91. I f he doe s th is, the bur de n th enshi ft s to the Cl ini c to of fe r a nond isc ri m inator

y r ea son fo r its a ct ion s - the se co nd s te p. S ee id. I f the Cl ini c fa ils to of

fe r a le git im at e ex plana tio n f or it s a ct ion s, Mo rr is i s e nti tle d to a j udgm en t a s am atte r of

law . S ee id. I f how ev er the Cl ini c of

fe rs ale git im at e ex plana tio n th enMo rr is m ust take the thi rd

ste p. H e m

ust sho wthe e xpl an at ionis ina de qua te , am er e pr et ex t. S ee id. T he r es ult of thi s th re e ste p danc e is tha t the bu rd en is alwa y s o n p la in ti ff t o s ho w th atde fen da nt ’s act io n i s d is cri m in at ory . See Hawk in s v . Ceco Co rp ., 88 3 F .2d97 7, 9 81 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). U nde r ei the r the tr ad iti ona l m ethod or the Mc D onne ll D ougl as f ram ew ork, Morris’ em

ploym ent discrim ination claim is without m erit. H e has no evidence that a ge or

se x pl ay ed

a ny r ole in the Cl ini c’ s de te rm inatio n to te rm inate his12

em plo ym en t. R athe r than c onf ro nt this de fi ci en cy

in his c as e, on a

ppe al Mo rr is ci te s se ve ra l po sit ive r ev ie w s he r ec ei ve d w hil e em plo y ed w iththe Cl ini c to s how that hi s di sm iss al w as unw ar rante d. O ur

ta sk h ow ev er

is not to se co nd- gue ss whe th er t erm in at in g M orris was a go od or b adbu si ne ss de ci si on by the Cli ni c. O ur r ev ie wis lim ite d to w he the r the Cl ini c ha s us ed a ge or se x a s aba sis to te rm in at e h im

or t reat hi m

les s fa vo rab ly. Se x D isc ri m inatio n Morris’ allegations of direct evidence are unsup portable. H e asserts that the Clinic’ s prefer ence f

or a ce rtain ratio of fe m ales to m ales at the Clifton Road loc at ionsho w s di re ct

e vid en ce of

dis cr im inatio n a ga ins t m al es . W ith out thi s pr efer en ce, Mo rri s al le ge s t ha t h e wou ldha ve be en ab le to workat C li fto n R oa d. Mor ri s c ite s num er ous em

plo ym en t c as es inv olv ing de fe ndants m ak ing di sc riminat ory

st at em en ts to th e p la in ti ff t o s up po rt h is po si ti on . See, e.g ., L ind se y v. A m . Ca st I ro n P ipe Co . , 772 F . 2d 7 99, 802 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) ( state m en t th atem pl oyer lo ok in g fo r “ y ou ng er p ers on ”), Bu rn s v . Gads en Sta te Cmty. Co ll ., 908 F.2d 151 2, 1518 (11th Cir. 1990 ) (statem ent that no wom an would be nam ed to po si ti on ). The C linic however did not m ake such a statem ent. T o the contrary , other m al es w orke d a t the Cl if

tonRo ad loc at iona nd at l ea st o ne oth er m al e phy sic ian,13

Bashuk, w as hired to perform duties there. The district court cor rectly concluded Mo rri s fa il edto pre se ntan y di rect ev id en ce o f un la wfu l s ex di sc riminat io n. The M cD onnell Dougl as fram ew ork is unh elpful to Morris. Aplaintiff does not shi ft the bur de n to the de fe ndant unde r Mc D onne ll D ougl as m er el y by statin g that he was f

ired or tre ated unfavorably . McD onnell Dougl as requires the plaintiff to e sta bli sh a pr im a fa ci e ca se w hic h in cl ude s id en tif y ing a n in div idu al w ho re pla ce d hi m

or w as tr eate d be tte r than he w as w ho w as not am em be r of his protected class (here an older m ale). See Hawkins, 883 F. 2d at 982 . When ev al ua tin g ar ep la ce m en t w e ha ve state d “ [w ] he re the e m plo y ee ' s po sit ionis cl earl y de lin eate d and r es pons ibi lit ie s are w el l de fi ne d, the c ourt sh oul d f oc us o n the pe rs on tha t ph y sic al ly r ep la ce d th e em

plo y ee or c onsi de r w he the r that j ob t itl e w as a ct ua lly f ill ed . ” I d. O nly

a ft er the pla int if

f ha s m ad e his pr im a fa ci e ca se do es th e b ur de n s hi ft t o t he de fen da nt . Mor ri s ne ve r m ak es it

pa st the f ir st s te p of

Mc D onne ll D ougl as . H e ha s no t identified any

fem ale phy sician who replace d him . He claim s that he was r eplaced by Ch oy -H ee , but

the und isp ute d e vid en ce sho w s th at she w as hir ed

f or the Cl if ton Ro adlo cat io n s ev eral m on th s b efo re t he Cli ni c d eci de d t o t erm in at e Mo rri s. Mor ri s a lso f ai ls t o id en tif

y af em al e phy sic ian w ho r ec ei ve d si m ilar co m pla int s co nc er nin g of f- co lor r em ar ks a bout he r pa tie nts ’ abil ity

to ha ve c hil dr ena nd who14

wa s accused of conducting forceful phy sical exam ination s who wa s not term inated (o r re ce ive d f

av or ab le tr eatm en t) . W ith out sho w ing that a

c om para ble f em al e re ce i v ed “ n ea rl y i d en t i ca l ” c o m p l ai n t s , we ca n n o tad eq u at el y co m p ar e t h e C l i n i c’s ac tio ns t ow ar ds M or

ri s and o the r fe m al e phy sic ians. S ee Manic ci a v. Br ow n, 171 F. 3d 1 364, 136 8- 69 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . F ina lly Mo rr is f ai ls t o e xpl ai n ho whe is d i s ad v an t ag ed b y wo rk i n g atCr aw fo rd Lo n g as o p p o s ed t o Cl i ft o n Ro ad . We ha ve id en ti fie d n o m ean in gf ul way to di st in gu is h t he two ot he r th an ge og rap hy. A cc or din gly

the Cl ini c’ s pl ac em en t of Mo rr is at the Cr aw fo rd

L ong loc at ionis not ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce of dis cr im inatio n. U nde r the tr ad iti ona l f

ram ew ork or

Mc D onne ll D ougl as , Mo rr is c an not co nne ct his te rm inatio n to his se x. B ec au se Mo rr is h as not pr es en te d su ff

ic ie nt ev ide nc e that he w as tr eate d le ss f av or ab ly than af em al e w or

ke r, w e ne ed

not evaluate the Clinic’ s burden of produ ction un der the McD onnell Dougl as fr am ew ork. A ge D isc ri m inatio n Mor ri s f ai le d to pr es en t any

e vid en ce of

a ge dis cr im inatio n - dir ec t or ind ir ec t us ing Mc D onne ll D ougl as . S ee Cart er v. Ci ty of Mi am i, 870 F . 2d 5 78, 582 (1 1thCi r. 198 9) ( ap ply ing Mc D onne ll D ougl as f ram ew ork to a ge di sc riminat io n c la im ). He di d n ot id en ti fy a y ou ng er p hysic ia n wh o re pl aced hi m .15

He also failed to show that any y oung er phy sician who rec eived nearly identical com plaints was treate d better than he wa s. T herefor e the district court did no t err in di sm is si ng th is cla im . The district court adopted the m agistrate’ s ruling th at because Morr is was not 40 y ears of

a ge a t the ti m e of

his te rm inatio n, he w as not w ith in the c la ss o f pe rs ons pr ote ct ed

by the A D E A . W e m ay

a gr ee w iththat l eg al pr inc ipl e, se e 29 U. S. C. § 631 , how ever w e have identified nothi ng in th e re cord to sugg est that Mor ri s w as und er

40 y ears old

a t the ti m e of

his te rm inatio n. Whil e fe wpe opl e would view Morr is, aged 40, a s old in relation to a person in m id to late 30s s uch as Ch oy-Hee, we ne edno t ad dr es s t hi s i ss ue . He alth Care Quality

Im provem ent Act Mor ri s in voke s th e H ea lthCare Q ua lity I m pr ove m en t A ct

( H CQ IA ) to s how that the Cl ini c’ s f

ai lur e to a de qua te ly

c ondu ct a n in ve sti ga tio n be fo re his te rm inatio n is e vid en ce of e m plo ym en t di sc ri m inatio n. I nde ed he c ar ef ull y out lin es the hos pit al ’ s a lle ge d f ai lur e to f oll owit s own in te rn al pr oc ed ur es a nd oth er gui de lin es in its inv es tig at iona nd h is t er m inatio n. T he H CQ IAdir ec ts tha t a hosp ita l i nve sti ga tin g on e of it s ph y sic ians r ep ort the r es ult s of it s in qui ry

to the na tio na l databank. S ee 42 U . S. C. § 11 133. H ospi ta ls h av e im m uni ty f ro m liabilityfor com

ply ing with this statute unless th e re port filed is kno wingly false.16

Se e 42 U . S. C. § 11 137( c) . T he re is no e xpr es s pr ivate r igh t of a ct ionund er

the HCQIA. A t bo tto m

Mo rr is’ H CQ IAc la im

is re al ly about the Cl ini c al le ge dly

not co nduc tin g af

ull a nd thor oughinv es tig at ionbe fo re te rm inatin g hi m . Whil e Mor ri s di sput es the c hara ct er iz at ionof the pa tie nt c om

pla int s and the a de qua cy

of the Cl ini c’ s in ve sti ga tio n, w ith out sho w ing that se x or

a ge play ed

ar ole in his te rm in at io n h e h as no em pl oym en t d is cri m in at io n c as e. This is not to sayhe is without legal recourse if the hospital in fact ar bitrari ly r ev oke d hi s st af

f pr ivi le ge s invio la tio n of it s by law s. U nde r G eo rg ia law a phy sician m ay

have a ca use of action for a hospital’ s revocation of staff pr ivi le ge s w ith out

sub stanti al ly

c om ply ing w ithit s by law s. S ee O . C. G . A . § 51 -1 - 6; Lee v . Hos p. Au th ., __F.3d __ , 20 05 W L 17 21 59 (11 th Cir . Jan . 27 , 20 05 ). Mor ri s ho w ev er

ha s no t a lle ge d ac au se of a ct ionund er

G eo rg iastate lawa ga ins t the Cl ini c fo r fa ilure to co m ply w ithit s by law s inhis te rm inatio n a s inL ee . O ur rev ie w th eref

or e is li m it edto Mo rri s’ leg al ly ins uf fic ie nt di sc riminat io n c la im . AFFIR MED.