Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 318583.pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,777 chars

as the trial court had, on whether Dr. Sambas ivan had presented evidence from which a

reasonable jury could find a causal connection between his discrimination lawsuit and the

decision of the Kadlec board to adopt and retroactively apply a proficiency standard that

would render him ineligible for renewal of his interventional cardiology privileges.

Concluding that he had, we remanded the retaliation claim for trial.

Following remand, the trial court conducted a telephonic status conference and

invited any further dispositive motions from the parties. Kadlec responded by moving for

summary judgment dismissal of Dr. Sambasivan's retaliation claims "because he has not

and cannot identify any contract or employment relationship between himself and Kadlec

that gives rise to a retaliation claim under federal or state law and, even if he could, he

No. 31858-3-111
Sambasivan v. Kadlec Med. Ctr.

cannot show any interference with such a relationship." CP at 181. Following briefing

and argument, the trial court granted Kadlec's motion. Dr. Sambasivan again appeals.

ANALYSIS

Dr. Sambasivan's complaint alleges that Kadlec's actions "violated state and

federal law prohibiting retaliation." CP at 6. In moving for summary judgment, Kadlec

recognized that the doctor asserted a federal law retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981

and a state law claim under Washington's Law Against Discrimination, chapter 49.60

RCW.

Kadlec persuaded the trial court that to assert a federal retaliation claim, Dr.

Sambasivan must identify an impaired contractual relationship under which he has rights,

that Dr. Sambasivan "relies on the [medical staff] Bylaws to provide the contractual