Omar Bibi v. Daniel & Yeager LLC, et al.
Published: May 26, 2023 | Result Date: Feb. 9, 2023 | Filing Date: Apr. 28, 2021 |Case number: 3:21-cv-04670-EMC Summary Judgment – Defense
Judge
Court
USDC Northern District of California
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Gregory G. Paul
(Paul Law Offices)
Defendant
Jonathan L. Brophy
(Seyfarth Shaw LLP)
Lauren S. Schwartz
(Seyfarth Shaw LLP)
Facts
In the summer of 2020, VxL Enterprises contracted with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide care to inmates who had been affected by COVID-19 at California state prisons. Accordingly, it set up a type of field hospital at the San Quentin State Prison and contracted with Daniel & Yeager and Sycamore Physician Contracting in order to staff the field hospital. Daniel & Yeager contracted physicians to work under the direction of Dr. Andre Pennardt, VxL's Chief Medical Officer, but it maintained no presence at the San Quentin field hospital.
On July 6, 2020, Dr. Bibit contracted with Daniel & Yeager to provide medical services at the San Quentin field hospital. His contract was for one month--from July 20, 2020 to August 20, 2020--for 32 consecutive 12-hour shifts, running from 7 in the morning to 7 in the evening.
In June 2021, Dr. Bibi filed suit against Daniel & Yeager and others. All other claims against the other defendants had been either dismissed or settled, leaving only the civil rights retaliatory claim against Daniel & Yeager, who filed a motion for summary judgment.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant retaliated against him when it terminated his contract after plaintiff complained about Dr. Pennardt's racially-discriminatory conduct. According to plaintiff, about a week after he began his tenure, Dr. Pennardt made remarks alluding to plaintiff's Arabic Tunisian background. Plaintiff was then informed, after complaining about the discriminatory conduct, that his contract had been terminated.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that the decision to terminate plaintiff's contract had been made well before he complained about the discriminatory behavior. Defendant argued that it had independent, non-retaliatory reasons to end plaintiff's employment from the first day of his contract. From day one, plaintiff arrived three hours after his shift and continued to do so for the next three days thereafter. He was then told to show up on time. Moreover, plaintiff also left the prison without approval to purchase food, and violated security and safety protocols. Plaintiff also fell asleep and failed to take care of one of his patients during one of his shifts.
Result
The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390