FILED
United States Court of Appeals
PUBLISH Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 23, 2010
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
ROBERT A. NAROTZKY, M.D.,
THOMAS A. KOPITNIK, JR., M.D.,
DEBRA STEELE, M.D., and CENTRAL
WYOMING NEUROSURGERY, LLC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
No. 09-8053
NATRONA COUNTY MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES;
WYOMING MEDICAL CENTER; INC.,
a Wyoming non-profit corporation;
WYOMING MEDICAL CENTER. INC.,
BOARD OF DIRECTORS; MIKE REID,
in his personal capacity and official
capacity; PAM FOLK, in her personal and
official capacity; VICKIE DIAMOND, in
her personal capacity and official
capacity; MARY JANE O’CONNOR, in
her personal and official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
(D.C. No. 2:08-CV-00027-CAB)
Patrick J. Crank, Speight, McCue & Crank, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming, (John B. “Jack”
Speight and Robert T. McCue, Speight, McCue & Crank, P.C., with him on the briefs),
for Appellants.
Stephenson D. Emery, Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, Wyoming, (Scott
Ortiz, Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., with him on the brief), for Appellees.
Before TACHA, HENRY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
HENRY, Circuit Judge.
Robert A. Narotzky, M.D., Thomas A. Kopitnik, Jr., M.D., and M. Debra Steele,
M.D., doctors at Central Wyoming Neurosurgery, appeal the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Natrona County Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees,
the Wyoming Medical Center, Inc., the Wyoming Medical Center, Inc., Board of
Directors, and various officials of those entities (“the Medical Center”). The district
court granted summary judgment as to both of the plaintiffs’ claims—a procedural due
process claim based on a theory of constructive discharge and a claim based on the
warrantless search of their lockers. Because we conclude that no constructive discharge
occurred and that the search was reasonable, given the context and circumstances, we
affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to both claims. 1
1
The district court treated the plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the search of their lockers
as a freestanding Fourth Amendment claim even though the plaintiffs’ complaint does not
set forth this allegation as a separate cause of action. Instead, the issue more fairly
appears simply as part of the plaintiffs’ overarching constructive discharge claim.
Nonetheless, because the district court analyzed these allegations as constituting a
2
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Wyoming Medical Center is a non-profit entity organized and created under
Wyoming law. The Medical Center is managed, directed, and operated by a Board of
Directors (the “Board”), which is created and appointed according to the Medical
Center’s bylaws. The Central Wyoming Neurosurgery, LLC (“CWN”), whose members
consisted of Drs. Robert Narotzky, Thomas Kopitnik, and Debra Steele, also referred to
collectively as “CWN” in this opinion, held medical staff privileges at the Medical
Center. In late 2005, Drs. Narotzky, Kopitnik, and Steele resigned their privileges at the
Medical Center. They claim that their resignation was a constructive discharge that
violated their procedural due process rights. They also claim that the Medical Center
violated their Fourth Amendment rights by conducting an unreasonable search of their
lockers.
A. Dr. Kopitnik’s conduct in the operating room, and the subsequent
investigation and citation
In March 2004, Dr. Kopitnik performed a craniotomy on a patient at the Medical
Center facility. During the craniotomy, Dr. Kopitnik exited the operating room, leaving
Robert Griffin, a physician’s assistant, in charge of completing the surgical procedure.
Although Mr. Griffin was authorized to assist during surgeries, the Medical Center policy
separate substantive claim and because doing so does not change the outcome in this
case, we will similarly consider the issue.
3
required that he do so only under “direct supervision” of a physician, defined as “over the
shoulder” supervision. Pls. Confidential App. at 97. Dr. Kopitnik claimed that he had to
leave the operating room to perform surgery on another patient who had already been
anesthetized without his permission or authority.
After receiving a complaint filed by one of the nurses who witnessed the surgery,
the Medical Center launched an investigation into the incident. A Peer Review
Committee (“Review Committee”) convened to investigate the alleged misconduct. The
Review Committee determined that Dr. Kopitnik’s actions constituted a Level III
deficiency, or “major” deficiency in care. Dr. Kopitnik disputed the Review
Committee’s conclusion and requested that the Review Committee “re-review” the case.
The Review Committee granted Dr. Kopitnik’s request and adjusted the sanction to a
deficiency level of II, or “minor” deficiency in care. Dr. Kopitnik disagreed with the
revised decision, and asked the Review Committee to reconsider. The Review
Committee conducted another review, and declined to change the Level II deficiency.
After the Review Committee conducted its third review, Dr. Kopitnik and CWN
requested an evaluation of the case by an independent third party. The Review
Committee agreed to submit the case to review by a third party only if Dr. Kopitnik
agreed to be bound by the result. Dr. Kopitnik never responded to this offer, and the
unchanged Level II deficiency citation against Dr. Kopitnik became final.
CWN disputes the validity of the peer review process afforded Dr. Kopitnik on
procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, CWN asserts that the Review
4
Committee failed to follow the proper review process, as established by the Medical
Center Staff Bylaws. Substantively, CWN claims that the peer review process was a
sham motivated by the biases of Drs. Mary and Anne MacGuire (sisters who are both on
the Review Committee). CWN claims that Dr. Kopitnik’s actions during the procedure
in question were common practice at the Medical Center and thus reasonable, and that he
was unfairly singled out for the deficiency citation.
B. Staffing conflicts between the Medical Center and CWN
In July 2004, approximately three months after Dr. Kopitnik’s alleged failure to
properly supervise Mr. Griffin during surgery, the Medical Center and CWN entered into
a contract permitting CWN to provide its own operating room staff during surgeries that
CWN performed at the Medical Center. The contract stated that CWN and the Medical
Center would share the cost of the staff. The contract provided for a term of one year, but
specified that either party could terminate the contract at any time with 90 days notice.
Following the conclusion of the peer review, the Medical Center attempted to
contact CWN to discuss renewing the staffing contract. The Medical Center, however,
received no response and formed an internal subcommittee to discuss the future
arrangements. The subcommittee also met with CWN staff to receive input.
The subcommittee decided that it would not be feasible to continue with the CWN
staffing agreement because it would require the Medical Center to provide two separate
operating room teams, one for CWN surgeons and one for other surgeons at the Medical
5
Center. As a result, the subcommittee decided to recommend terminating the staffing
arrangement with the appropriate 90 days’ termination notice.
CWN claims that the staffing contract was terminated “in an effort to force the
CWN physicians to resign their privileges at [the Medical Center].” Aplt’s Br. at 16.
CWN claims that although the Medical Center attempted to justify its decision on
business grounds, the decision was actually extremely costly to the Medical Center. Id.
at 18. CWN claims that “[t]his exclusive OR team was part and parcel of the critical and
necessary resources needed to perform the highly difficult, delicate, and complicated
neurosurgical procedures which CWN physicians were then performing at [the Medical
Center].” Id. at 16.
C. Theft and locker search
Following the citation of Dr. Kopitnik and termination of the staffing agreement,
CWN refused to schedule any elective surgeries. The staffing agreement was set to
expire on October 31, 2005. CWN performed its final surgery on October 30, 2005, and
after it was completed, CWN staff began removing its equipment from the Medical
Center.
On October 31, 2005, an inventory technician discovered that several instruments
were missing from the Medical Center and notified his supervisors. The Medical Center
staff viewed the surveillance tapes of the common areas of the hospital. The tapes
showed CWN staff leaving the hospital with various equipment, bags, and boxes. The
6
Medical Center staff attempted to contact CWN to inquire as to whether any CWN
employees may have taken any of the instruments but received no response.
After viewing the tapes, Medical Center security personnel opened and searched
locker space belonging to CWN, looking for the missing instruments. The search turned
up no incriminating evidence, and no theft charges were brought against any CWN staff
members.
D. Resignation and district court proceedings
Subsequent to reaching an agreement to practice with a different medical center in
Cheyenne, Drs. Narotzky, Kopitnik, and Steele resigned their privileges at the Medical
Center on November 15, 2005.
Drs. Narotzky, Kopitnik, and Steele, and CWN filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
against the Medical Center and its governing individuals, alleging “one overarching claim
. . . . [,] [e]ssentially that they had a vested property interest in their privileges at [the
Medical Center], and that they were denied this property interest without due process of
law . . . when they were constructively discharged.” Aplt’s App., vol. 7, at 1914. The
plaintiffs also claimed that the search of their lockers violated their Fourth Amendment
rights.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Medical Center on
both claims. In addressing CWN’s due process claim, the court first found that Drs.
Narotzky, Kopitnik, and Steele possessed a constitutionally protected property interest in
their staff privileges at the Medical Center. Id. at 01915. The court then considered
7
whether the Medical Center constructively discharged the doctors (CWN). The court
analyzed the constructive discharge under a four-factor test—(1) whether CWN was
given some alternative to resignation; (2) whether CWN understood the nature of the
choice; (3) whether CWN was given a reasonable time in which to choose; and (4)
whether CWN was permitted to choose the effective date of resignation. Id. at 1916.
The court explained that it considered the totality of the circumstances in making its
determination.
With respect to factor one—whether the doctors were given an alternative to
resignation—the court found that CWN could have availed itself of options aside from
resignation. Specifically, the court noted that CWN could have filed a complaint with the
Medical Center or filed a lawsuit. As to factor two—whether CWN understood the
nature of the choice—the court found that the Medical Center did not force CWN to
make a choice and did not issue an ultimatum. Thus, this factor also favored the Medical
Center. In assessing the third factor—whether CWN was given a reasonable time in
which to choose—the court looked to evidence that showed that CWN was contemplating
a move long before its final decision to leave. Additionally, the court observed that “the
surgeons had a reasonable amount of time to make their decision to stay or leave.” Id. at
1919. Regarding the fourth factor—whether CWN was permitted to choose the effective
date of resignation—the court found that CWN clearly was in control of the
circumstances and “terminated the relationship without notice or communication.” Id. at
1920.
8
Although the analysis of these four factors militated against a finding of
constructive discharge, the court recognized that ultimately, the determination was not
based on the mechanical application of these enumerated factors but on the totality of the
circumstances. Id. at 1921–23. Consideration of all the circumstances, here, however,
supported the conclusion that no constructive discharge occurred. The court emphasized
that the CWN physicians sought additional employment options even before the conflicts
with the Medical Center began. Moreover, the court noted that the physicians had
numerous resources at their disposal—they were intelligent and influential neurosurgeons
with knowledge and experience in legal matters. Id. at 1922. Finally, the court
concluded that the resignation was not based on intolerable work conditions, as much as
“insurmountable disagreements” for which both parties were responsible—“[b]oth [the
Medical Center] and CWN created a hostile working environment for everyone at that
hospital. . . . [;] all parties involved created a work environment that few would enjoy.”
Id. Thus, the court concluded that CWN was not constructively discharged and thus, no
due process violation occurred.
In assessing the Fourth Amendment claim, the district court assumed that CWN
had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched. Nonetheless, the court
determined that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred because the search was not
unreasonable in light of the circumstances and context—the lower expectation of privacy
in the locker and the justified suspicion on the part of the Medical Center. To establish
that the search was reasonable, the Medical Center had to show that it was justified at its
9
inception and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified it. Although
the district court suggested that the Medical Center “jumped the gun” when it searched
the lockers without gathering all relevant information,” Id. at 1926, it nonetheless
concluded that the search was justified at its inception based on the following facts: (1) a
report from the Medical Center that the CWN staff had been searching through operating
room trays before leaving the hospital; (2) the surveillance tapes showing CWN
removing boxes of materials; (3) the missing instruments could only be used for
neurosurgery; and (4) the phone calls and e-mail to the CWN were not returned.
Additionally, the court found that the search was reasonable in its scope—the lockers
belonged to the CWN surgeons and the areas searched were all large enough to contain
the stolen instruments.
II. DISCUSSION
CWN appeals the district court’s finding that Drs. Narotzky, Kopitnik, and Steele
were not deprived of a constitutionally protected property interest in their staff privileges
at the Medical Center because they were not constructively discharged. 2 CWN also
challenges the district court’s finding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation.
A. Was there a Due Process Violation under §1983?
CWN first claims that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment
to the Medical Center and found that the Medical Center did not violate its procedural
2
The parties have filed numerous motions while the resolution of this case was pending.
Most recently the Appellees filed an “Amended Motion to Strike Appellants’ Citation of
Supplemental Authorities.” This motion is hereby denied.
10
due process rights because its actions did not amount to a constructive discharge. In
order to prevail on a procedural due process claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the
deprivation of a liberty or a property interest and (2) that no due process of law was
afforded. Stears v. Sheridan Co. Mem. Hosp. Bd. of Trustees, 491 F.3d 1160, 1162 (10th
Cir. 2007). However, if an employee voluntarily relinquishes a property interest, then no
procedural due process violation has occurred. Yearous v. Niobrara C’nty Mem. Hosp.,
128 F.3d 1351, 1355 (10th Cir. 1997). In that instance, the loss of the property interest
results from the employee’s own decision, and the employer may not be held liable on a
procedural due process claim. 3
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the
same legal standard used by the district court. Somaza v. Univ. of Denver, 513 F.3d
1206, 1211 (10th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, the
discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). When applying this standard, “[w]e examine the
3
Although the parties suggest that the individual plaintiffs may more appropriately be
characterized as independent contractors (as opposed to employees) of the Medical
Center, we assume for purposes of this appeal that they are in fact employees because this
court has never recognized a cause of action for the denial of procedural due process
based on constructive discharge when the discharged party is an independent contractor.
But see Smith v. Cleburne County Hosp., 870 F.2d 1375, 1381 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding
that independent contractors may bring claims for constructive discharge). We note,
however, that the plaintiffs’ claim in this case would fail even with such an extension of
liability because, as we explain below, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that the
resignation of privileges was voluntary and not coerced.
11
factual record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Somaza, 513 F.3d at
1211.
“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an
abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He
must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408
U.S. 564, 577 (1972). “Courts must look to existing rules or understandings that stem
from an independent source such as state law to define the dimensions of protected
property interests.” Ripley v. Wyoming Med. Ctr., Inc., 559 F.3d 1119, 1122 (10th Cir.),
cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 287 (2009)
In this case, CWN claims that the roots of a protected property interest may extend
beyond state statutes to include a hospital’s rules and bylaws, and the Medical Center’s
specific bylaws governing the situation here create a constitutionally protected property
interest in existing staff privileges. We need not decide this question, however, because
even assuming that CWN has demonstrated the existence of a protected property interest,
CWN has not shown that the Medical Center unconstitutionally deprived it of that
interest.
“A constructive discharge occurs when a reasonable person . . . would view her
working conditions as intolerable and would feel that she had no other choice but to
quit.” Tran v. Trustees of State Colleges in Colo., 355 F.3d 1263, 1270 (10th Cir. 2004);
see Strickland v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 555 F.3d 1224, 1228 (10th Cir. 2009)
(“Constructive discharge occurs when . . . ‘working conditions [were] so intolerable that
12
a reasonable person . . . would feel forced to resign.’”) (quoting Fischer v. Forestwood
Co., 525 F.3d 972, 980 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted)). We apply “an objective
test under which neither [CWN’s] subjective views of the situation, nor [the Medical
Center’s] subjective intent . . . are relevant.” Tran, 355 F.3d at 1270. The plaintiff has a
substantial burden to prove a constructive discharge claim, Strickland, 555 F.3d at 1228,
and “[w]hether a constructive discharge occurred is a question of fact,” id. (citing Arnold
v. McClain, 926 F.2d 963, 966 (10th Cir. 1991)). As the district court pointed out,
factors that we consider in determining whether there was a constructive discharge
include “(1) whether [CWN] was given some alternative to resignation; (2) whether
[CWN] understood the nature of the choice [s]he was given; (3) whether [it] was given a
reasonable time in which to choose; and (4) whether [CWN] was permitted to select the
effective date of resignation.” Parker v. Bd. of Regents of Tulsa Jr. College, 981 F.2d
1159, 1162 (10th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although these four
factors are not necessarily determinative when there is no explicit forced choice between
resignation and termination, they are nonetheless informative. See Lighton v. Univ. of
Utah, 209 F.3d 1213, 1223 (10th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, “[a] resignation will be
involuntary and coerced when the totality of the circumstances indicate [the lack of an]
opportunity to make a free choice.” Parker, 981 F.2d at 1162.
We conclude that the circumstances here did not constitute a constructive
discharge. Instead, the actions of both parties produced a working environment that
became mutually intolerable. The district court aptly described the situation when it
13
found that the resignation was not based on intolerable work conditions, as much as
based on “insurmountable disagreements” for which both parties are responsible. Aplt’s
app., vol. 7, at 1922. We agree that “[b]oth [the Medical Center] and CWN created a
hostile working environment for everyone at that hospital. . . . [A]ll parties involved
created a work environment that few would enjoy.” Id. at 1921; see Yearous, 128 F.3d at
1356 (“[T]his case exposes numerous instances of questionable judgment on behalf of all
involved.”).
We do not think that either the peer review process or the contract review process
were such that they ultimately gave CWN no choice but to resign. The Bylaws set forth
these procedures and, in its contract with the Medical Center, CWN had agreed to follow
them. It also is important that the peer review process and subsequent citation did
include an exchange between the two parties in which CWN had its views represented.
CWN may have ultimately disagreed with the citation it received, but that alone cannot
be grounds for a constructive discharge. Holding otherwise would risk allowing any
citation (which the receiving party will likely disagree with) to become the grounds for a
constructive discharge claim.
Consideration of the specific factors set forth in our precedent also supports the
conclusion that there was no constructive discharge here. See Parker, 981 F.2d at 1162.
First, the CWN physicians did have an alternative to resignation: namely continuing to
work at the Medical Center and trying to resolve the problem. Second, the CWN
physicians here are sophisticated neurosurgeons who understood the process and choices
14
offered to them. Finally, CWN did not resign until after Dr. Kopitnik completed the peer
review process and two weeks after the search of CWN’s lockers. Accordingly, the third
and fourth factors—(3) whether the CWN physicians were given a reasonable time in
which to choose and (4) whether the physicians were permitted to select the effective date
of resignation—both overwhelmingly favor the Medical Center as well.
CWN also argues that the theft allegations and the search of the lockers
contributed to an intolerable work atmosphere. This argument, however, has little merit
as these incidents occurred after the CWN physicians were already moving their
equipment out of the Medical Center. Thus, although they had not yet resigned, they had
obviously made alternate arrangements.
Because both parties contributed to the hostile working environment and the
relevant factors do not support the plaintiffs’ theory of constructive discharge, the district
court properly granted summary judgment to the Medical Center on CWN’s due process
claim. 4
B. Fourth Amendment Claim
4
We note that CWN did not request a hearing. The Bylaws, Chapter 12.2, “Grounds for
Hearing,” establish that the denial of Medical Staff membership and the denial of
Medical Staff reappointment, are both grounds for a hearing. Aplt.’s App. at 1568.
Chapter 12.3-1 of the Bylaws states that an individual who is entitled to a hearing must
make such a request within 30 days. Id. at 01570.
CWN brought its claims alleging a constructive discharge and we have thus
addressed it primarily as such. Because we agree with the district court that CWN was
not constructively discharged, we need not determine whether their failure to request a
hearing forecloses their procedural due process claim.
15
Next, CWN claims that the search of its lockers violated their Fourth Amendment
rights. The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S.
Const. amend. IV. In determining whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, we
first consider whether there was an expectation of privacy in the area searched. If so, we
must determine whether the search was reasonable under the circumstances. O’Connor v.
Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 719 (1987). The district court’s grant of summary judgment is
reviewed de novo, applying the same legal standard as described above. Somaza v. Univ.
of Denver, 513 F.3d 1206, 1211 (10th Cir. 2008).
In this case, we conclude that assuming CWN had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in the lockers, the search was reasonable under the circumstances. With limited
exceptions, a search or seizure requires either a warrant or probable cause. Camara v.
Mun. Court, 387 U.S. 523, 528–29 (1967). Nevertheless, there are some circumstances in
which “a warrant requirement is unsuitable.” O’Connor, 480 U.S. at 720. In particular,
if “the burden of obtaining a warrant is likely to frustrate the governmental purpose
behind the search,” Camara, 387 U.S. at 533, then a warrant may not be required by the
Fourth Amendment. Thus, in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 334-35 (1985), the
Supreme Court held that “the warrant requirement was not suitable to the school
environment, because such a requirement would unduly interfere with the maintenance of
the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools.” O’Connor, 480
U.S. at 720.
16
In O’Connor, the Supreme Court held that a warrant was not required to authorize
a public employer’s search of an employee’s office, desk, or file cabinets for a work-
related purpose. See 480 U.S. at 722 (stating that “requiring an employer to obtain a
warrant whenever the employer wished to enter an employee’s office, desk, or file
cabinets for a work-related purpose would seriously disrupt the routine conduct of
business and would be unduly burdensome”). The Court further held that public
employers’ intrusions on the constitutionally protected privacy interests of government
employees for noninvestigatory, work-related purposes, as well as for investigations of
work-related misconduct, should be judged by the standard of reasonableness under all
the circumstances. Id. at 725-26.
Under this standard, “both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be
reasonable.” Id. at 726. In applying this reasonableness standard, the courts must
balance “the legitimate privacy interests of public employees in the private objects they
bring to the workplace” against “the realities of the workplace,” which include “the need
to complete the government agency’s work in a prompt and efficient manner.” Id. at
721-22.
Our balancing of the relevant factors favors the Medical Center and shows that the
search was reasonable both in its inception and in its scope. In particular, in October
2005, the Medical Center had legitimate grounds to suspect that its property might be
found in CWN’s lockers. Those grounds included: (1) the report of the inventory
technician that surgical instruments were missing; (2) the surveillance tape that showed
17
CWN personnel leaving the hospital with various equipment, bags and boxes; and (3) the
bad relationship between the parties. It also is relevant in assessing the reasonableness of
the actions that the Medical Center’s staff attempted to contact CWN both through e-mail
and phone about the missing equipment but never received a response. In these
circumstances, the Medical Center acted reasonably as it was searching to ensure that no
additional supplies were removed from their facility and that any stolen items were
recovered as soon as possible. The missing equipment could fit in the lockers, and it was
therefore a permissible place for the employer to look, given time constraints and the
sincere attempt to request permission.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we hereby AFFIRM the district court’s grant of
summary judgment as to both claims.
18