Opinion ID: 162495
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dismissal of Hospital Board Members and Corporate Entities

Text: 36 Plaintiffs challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendants Columbia/HCA Healthcare (Columbia), Healthtrust, Inc. (HTI), and the Hospital Board Members. We review the grant or denial of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standard used by the district court ... Kaul v. Stephan, 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). 37 Inexplicably, Plaintiffs' counsel agreed to the dismissal of HTI in a joint stipulation, filed on February 11, 1999. II Hospital App. at 173-74. Regardless, HTI and Columbia provided uncontroverted documentary evidence, including a bill of sale, showing that they did not own the Hospital at the time of the alleged sexual harassment. I Hospital Supp.App. at 210-211, 317. As countervailing evidence, Plaintiffs offer only the Defendants' failure to specifically deny ownership in their answer to the original complaint, and the dubious assertion that the names by which the Hospital has been known suggest ownership by HTI and Columbia. We review the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Thournir v. Meyer, 909 F.2d 408, 409 (10th Cir.1990), but this generous standard cannot compensate for the Plaintiffs' complete lack of specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). We find no error in the dismissal of Columbia and HTI. 38 Plaintiffs claimed only negligence against the Hospital board members. Upon finding no statutory or common law duty to protect another person — Ms. Wilson in this case — from sexual harassment, the district court granted summary judgment for the board members. Plaintiffs appeal that decision. The jury found against Dr. Muckala only on the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, which we reverse on appeal as insufficiently alleged. Consequently, we find that, even if it was error to grant summary judgment for the board members, any error was harmless. Plaintiffs could not have sustained a cause of action in negligence against these individuals when the alleged perpetrator himself was exonerated of negligence. 39 The district court ruled on summary judgment that Dr. Muckala was not a hospital employee — a ruling Plaintiffs challenge on appeal. Under the state law standards set forth in Sawin v. Nease, 186 Okla. 195, 97 P.2d 27, 29-32 (Okla. 1939), the touchstone of an employment relationship is the right to control the means and manner of the worker's performance. See also Zinn v. McKune, 143 F.3d 1353, 1357 (10th Cir.1998). In determining whether one is an employee under Title VII, we have considered the following factors: 40 (1) the kind of occupation at issue, with reference to whether the work usually is done under the direction of a supervisor or is done by a specialist without supervision; (2) the skill required in the particular occupation; (3) whether the employer or the employee furnishes the equipment used and the place of work; (4) the length of time the individual has worked; (5) the method of payment, whether by time or by job; (6) the manner in which the work relationship is terminated; (7) whether annual leave is afforded; (8) whether the work is an integral part of the business of the employer; (9) whether the worker accumulates retirement benefits; (10) whether the employer pays social security taxes; and (11) the intention of the parties. 41 Id. 42 Plaintiffs provide little evidence pertaining to these factors, but point exclusively to the doctor's role as Chief of Staff. However, the Hospital introduced significant evidence that the doctor was an independent contractor, not a salaried employee, and that his service as Chief of Staff was a collateral duty to which he was elected by his peers and paid $1000 per month from staff dues. In light of this explanation, the doctor's role as Chief of Staff and the associated monthly check do not even approach an adequate showing that the Hospital controlled the means and manner of Dr. Muckala's performance. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment on this issue. 43 Plaintiffs also find error in the district court's rejection of the apparent authority or aided-by-the-agency theory of liability for sexual harassment. An employer might be vicariously or directly liable for a hostile work environment created by its employees. Harrison v. Eddy Potash, Inc., 158 F.3d 1371, 1376 (10th Cir. 1998). In the usual case, vicarious liability stems from a supervisor's misuse of actual authority. Id. at 1377. In addition, an employer may be vicariously liable when the harassing employee has apparent authority — gives the false impression that the actor was a supervisor, when he in fact was not, [and] the victim's mistaken conclusion [was] a reasonable one. Burlington Indus. Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 759, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998). This is the unusual case. Id. We must look for evidence that the [harassing employee] purported to act or speak on behalf of the [employer] and there was reliance upon apparent authority, or the [harassing employee] was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relation. Burlington Indus. Inc., 524 U.S. at 758, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (quoting Restatement (2d) of Agency § 219(1)). 44 The district court found on summary judgment that there was no support for an apparent authority theory of vicarious liability. Ms. Wilson cites her own affidavit testimony that she felt Dr. Muckala, as Chief of Staff, had power and authority over her job, and that he told her he had such power because of his position as well as his friendship with the Hospital CEO. However, Ms. Wilson received assurances from her immediate supervisors that Dr. Muckala exercised no authority over her position, and in describing her chain of command, identified her supervisors and the administration, but did not imply that Dr. Muckala had a place in it. We agree with the district court that there was insufficient evidence put forward to demonstrate that Dr. Muckala, who had no actual authority over Ms. Wilson, exercised apparent authority over her. 45 Furthermore, under Oklahoma law, apparent authority results from a manifestation by the principal to a third person that another is his agent. Stephens v. Yamaha Motor Co., 627 P.2d 439, 441 (Okla.1981). Agency cannot be proven by the reputed declarations of the reputed agent. Home Owners' Loan Corp. v. Thornburgh, 187 Okla. 699, 106 P.2d 511, 514 (Okla.1940). A third party asserting apparent authority to bind an alleged principal to a contract must also demonstrate its reliance on the principal's manifestation and its change of position as result thereof. Southwestern Bell Media, Inc. v. Arnold, 819 P.2d 293, 294 (Okla.Ct. App.1991). There was no evidence of a manifestation or holding out by the Hospital to Ms. Wilson that Dr. Muckala was the Hospital's agent. Dr. Muckala's alleged declarations alone cannot serve to bind the Hospital under a theory of apparent authority. 46 Plaintiffs argue that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to add a claim for quid pro quo sexual harassment to the pretrial order in light of the recently decided Collier v. Insignia Financial Group, 981 P.2d 321 (Okla. 1999). The order following a final pretrial conference shall be modified only to prevent manifest injustice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(e). As discussed above, Dr. Muckala did not have either actual or apparent supervisory authority over Ms. Wilson. Absent the possibility that job benefits were conditioned on an employee's submission to conduct of a sexual nature and that adverse job consequences result from the employee's refusal to submit to the conduct, there can be no legitimate claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment. Hicks, 833 F.2d at 1414. 47 Plaintiffs argue that the district court ruled inconsistently on Plaintiffs' claim for tortious interference with business relations against Dr. Muckala and that, consequently, Plaintiffs' counsel failed to present evidence on that claim because he thought it not viable. However, Plaintiffs do not direct this court to their objection at trial (if there was one), cite no law supporting reversal, and do not proffer any evidence that they would have submitted at trial to support the tortious interference claim but for their erroneous belief that the claim was no longer alive. 48 Finally, Plaintiffs appeal a lengthy list of jury instructions requested and denied by the district court. Merely listing the rejected instructions does not satisfy the briefing requirements of this court and we therefore deem all waived except the instruction pertaining to circumstantial evidence which was briefed in some detail. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir.1998). However, that instruction was given as part of a general instruction on the evidence, IV Wilson App. at 916, as agreed to by Plaintiffs' counsel. III Hospital Supp.App. at 813. We find no error. 49