Original Case Brief attached and the Feedback attached.Share one section from your original brief. Identify 1-2 specific ways in which that section could be improved, based on the commentary on the Ca

Citation

Ashkenazi v. South Broward Hospital District, 13-15061, 607 Fed App, 958 (Ct. App.11th Cir., 2015)

Procedural History

A doctor instituted an employment discrimination by age suit against the Hospital District with regard to violations of provisions of 29 U.S.C. 621 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Fla. Stat. 760.01 of the Florida Civil Rights Act after the revocation of his surgical privileges. The District court holds that the doctor does not qualify for the protection under these provisions as he is an independent contractor and not an employee.

Issue(s)

Whether there was an employer-employee relationship existent between the doctor and the district. Whether Fla. Stat. 395.0191 exempted professional review actions from immunity under Federal Civil Rights statutes. Whether the trial court was fault in its holding against the appellant in his pleadings for the District’s interference in his employment by 3rd parties.

Facts

Dr. Ashkenazi, the appellant, owned a corporation through which he operated private practice and that paid his salary, as well as handled his income tax responsibilities via the provision of W-2 forms. This body also had the authority to fire its paid employees. On appeal, the doctor did not claim existence of an employment relationship and asserts that the contract drafted determined him as an independent contractor. The district provided the doctor with hospital equipment, hospital facilities, support-staff etc. to execute his duty. The appellant, however, claims that the hospital, in its action and treatment of him, had demonstrated that he was an employer. This is argued out by presentation of evidence of his subjection to having proctors accompany him in surgery, creation of records on his surgeries, and the more vigorous observation that is applied to his past surgeries in contrast to peer-review customs. For these reasons, he appeals the summary judgement granted by the trial court and in turn address his complaints on the age-discrimination

Rule

There are tests that are applied in the determination of employment status under federal laws; the common law agency test, the “economic realities” test and the hybrid approach. These tests look into the level of control by the employers, the dependency on the employer and many different aspects of employer-employee relationships.

Holding

Issue #1: Whether there was an employer-employee relationship existent between the doctor and the district.

Holding #1: The court held that whilst it had not determined what test was applicable for ADEA cases, the appellant in the case in question had also failed to provide sufficient evidence of material fact to satisfy any of the applicable tests.

Issue #2: Whether Fla. Stat. 395.0191 exempted professional review actions from immunity under Federal Civil Rights statutes.

Holding #2: The Court insisted that the language used in the Florida legislature was to be read and interpreted as it should be by Florida Courts and that the language does not reflect the messages of separate Federal Statutes enacted by entirely different bodies.

Issue #3: Whether the trial court was fault in its holding against the appellant in his pleadings for the District’s interference in his employment by 3rd parties.

Holding #3: The court held that the amended appeal was silent on the existence of any relationship between him and a 3rd party in Dr. Feldbaum. The inclusion of this after the grant of the summary dismissal also absolves the trail court of error as it did not have this information initially.

Reasoning

The court also held that there is no employment relationship created by conventional patient-doctor relationship under federal statutes that govern discrimination such as the ADEA. This was a decision that had been observed in five different circuit courts against Title VII claims that of doctors acting in their capacity as patients’ employees. The age-based discrimination suit was restricted by the provisions of Fla. Stat. 395.0191(7) and the appellant failed to adequately assert intentional fraud.

In the claim against the District for interference in the appellant’s employment by 3rd parties, the court held that it affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgement as the evidence provided was insufficient to prove the existence of an employment relationship between the appellant and a 3rd party. It was however found that a claim of this nature for interference was possible under Title VII though its legality within the limitation of the ADEA have not been determined by any court in preceding issues and was not determined due to the claim failing on its merits.

Conclusion

The appellate Court affirmed the Trial Court’s summary dismissal orders for the reasons that his arguments did not satisfy the requirements to qualify for protection against discrimination under the ADEA nor the FCRA.