Alexander v. Rush N. Shore Med. Ctr. - 101 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 1996)

Rule:

A plaintiff must prove the existence of an employment relationship in order to maintain an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C.S. 2000e et seq., action against the defendant; independent contractors are not protected by Title VII.

Facts:

Plaintiff, an Egyptian-born Muslim and a physician, became affiliated with and was granted staff privileges as an anesthesiologist at Skokie Valley Hospital in 1974; the hospital later became known as Rush North Shore Medical Center. As a condition of his privileges, plaintiff was required to spend a specified amount of time per week "on call" to the hospital's emergency room. When he failed to comply with the hospital’s on call policy to aid a patient during an emergency, plaintiff’s hospital privileges were revoked. Plaintiff subsequently filed a charge with the Illinois Department of Human Rights and with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that the hospital had revoked his staff privileges not because he had violated the hospital's on-call policy, but because of his religion and national origin. Plaintiff’s case was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois, claiming that the hospital’s revocation of his privileges constituted unlawful discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. After discovery, the hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff was precluded from bringing a Title VII action against the hospital because the undisputed facts in the record demonstrated that he was an independent contractor, rather than an employee of the hospital. The district court granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue:

Was plaintiff an independent contractor of the hospital, thereby precluding him from bringing a Title VII action?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court found that the physician was an independent contractor and held that independent contractors were not protected by Title VII. In so holding, the court overruled Doe v. St. Joseph's Hosp. of Fort Wayne, 788 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1986), which held that a physician need only show that the hospital met the statutory definition of an "employer" and that it interfered with her present or future employment opportunities on the basis of her membership in a protected class. The court found that the holding was irreconcilable with its more recent decisions holding that a plaintiff had to prove the existence of an employment relationship in order to maintain a Title VII action against the employer. The court then applied a five-part test and determined that the physician was an independent contractor because he exercised his own judgment in treating payments, had a specialized skill, was responsible for his own operating costs, was responsible for his own billing and fee collections, and was free to associate with other hospitals.