Without Evidence Of Pretext, Employer's Firing Is Non-Discriminatory When Employee Admits To The Conduct At Issue
FARR v. ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTERS (June 29, 2009)
David Farr was a respiratory therapist at St. Francis Hospital. In 2000, he was the only male among the seven respiratory therapists in his department. There was a single computer in the department for the use of all the therapists. Although the hospital policy was for each therapist to log on with a unique password before each use, the practice was quite different. Typically, the first user of the day logged on with his or her password and all later users piggybacked on that login. When one of the therapists discovered inappropriate material on the computer, the hospital conducted an investigation. It found that: a) pornographic and hacking sites were accessed at the computer, b) Farr was logged on to the computer at the time the sites were accessed, and c) that Farr was the only one working on one particular day when a substantial amount of the activity took place. Farr eventually admitted that he was responsible for visiting some of the sites and that the others may have been generated by a computer virus during his use of the computer. The hospital terminated Farr's employment. Farr sued the hospital, alleging gender discrimination and a breach of implied covenant of fair dealing based on the employee handbook. The court granted summary judgment to the hospital. Farr appeals.
In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Evans affirmed. Although Farr asserted that he could prove his claim by both the direct and indirect methods, the Court disagreed. Neither test resulted in a conclusion that Farr was the victim of gender discrimination. In fact, the Court stated, the hospital's investigation convinced it that he was the one responsible. He even admitted he accessed the inappropriate sites. Nothing in the record showed that the hospital's reasons were pretextual. The Court also affirmed with respect to the state law claims. Farr's covenant of fair dealing claim is inconsistent with Indiana law. His defamation claim fails because the hospital's report was privileged, in that it was used during the grievance proceedings that he himself initiated.
