Castells v. Fisher
Justice David Schmidt
Physician Castells, an insulin-dependent diabetic, alleged his supervisor, Dr. Fisher, discriminated against him based on his disability, and ultimately constructively discharged him. Castells claimed Fisher filed numerous adverse professional reports alleging Castells was an "impaired" doctor. Fisher conceded making reports, claiming they were justified, thus moved for summary judgment. The court concluded Fisher's alleged conduct did not constitute disability bias or constructive discharge, finding while his reports of Castells alleged mental impairment were proved incorrect, a subsequent, separate disciplinary investigation initiated by Fisher led to findings that Castells impermissibly conducted private practice outside his employer's facilities. As a result, Castells voluntarily resigned claiming age, not disability, discrimination in his resignation letter. The court ruled Castells made no showing that Fisher's prior reports were motivated by Castells' disability or the later investigation served as a pretext to compel Castells to leave. It noted Castells failed to raise a triable issue of fact if Fisher's proffered reason for his challenged action was pre-textual, rather than non-discriminatory, granting Fisher's motion.