Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—W.D. Pa.: Physician, referred to as ‘dead wood’ prior to contract nonrenewal, advances claims, (Feb 24, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

There was sufficient evidence of evolving rationales for the nonrenewal of the 71-year-old’s contract to defeat the employer’s motion for summary judgment.

Denying an employer’s motion for summary judgment against the ADEA and Pennsylvania Human Relations Act claims brought by a former ER physician, a federal district court determined that the nonrenewal of the physician’s contract constituted an adverse employment action and there was evidence that the hospital’s proffered reasons for the nonrenewal may have been pretextual. An email sent by a decisionmaker in November 2019 stated that the doctor “is gone in June,” a statement that was made prior to several of the incidents cited by the employer that purportedly led to its decision to let the physician go (Chreky v. University of Pittsburgh Physicians, No. 2:23-cv-00856 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2026)).

From 2017 through mid-2021, the physician worked in the emergency room at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center McKeesport. His employment was governed by successive one-year contracts. The contract was set to renew automatically unless the physician received notice of nonrenewal.

Leaving early. On July 26, 2020, the physician’s supervisor sent him an email notifying him that she had heard complaints that he was leaving up to 45 minutes before his shift was scheduled to end.

That October, a physician’s assistant stated that the physician had left work 45 minutes early, leaving him alone with a heart attack patient in the ER.

Age-related comments. On November 9, 2020, an executive who was in charge of overseeing the emergency department operations emailed another doctor, stating that the physician was not “long for our world” and that the hospital needed “new boots on the ground.”

In another email, dated November 19, 2020, the executive wrote of plans for “new leadership, remove some dead wood.” He also stated that the physician “is gone in June. We will notify him in February.”

Assistance program. On December 1, 2020, the executive sent the physician a letter requiring him to contact the Physician Assistance Program (PAP). The letter came about after an incident during which the physician allegedly swore at and spoke in a loud voice to one of the physician assistants. A week later the physician received his performance review, which rated him as “requires improvement.”

Medication error. Later that month, the executive emailed the physician asking him why he administered a contraindicated drug to a patient. The physician’s response allegedly failed to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation. The executive then inquired with HR about next steps, which responded that a letter or email would be appropriate, given this was the physician’s first formal care related complaint.

New hire. On December 15, 2020, the executive reached out to a 34-year-old doctor who had toured the hospital the previous month. He offered him a full-time position starting July 1, 2021, with his duties split between McKeesport and another facility.

Charting incident. A few days later, a quality reviewer forwarded a patient chart completed by the physician to the executive, who in turn contacted the physician asking him to explain the poor charting, which the physician attributed to being very busy. No further incidents concerning the physician’s professional conduct occurred before his last day of employment on June 30, 2021.The physician was 71-years-old at the time.

Replacement. Six months after the 34-year-old doctor began his employment, he started working full-time at McKeesport and was no longer required to split his duties between two facilities. Subsequently, the physician filed this suit alleging age discrimination.

Adverse employment action. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court first addressed the employer’s contention that a contract nonrenewal does not qualify as an adverse employment action. The court explained that in this Circuit, a contract nonrenewal is considered an adverse employment action.

Age difference. Next, the employer contended that there were no facts to support the physician’s claim that the 34-year-old doctor was hired to replace him because of his age. It also argued that the doctor did not replace the physician because their job duties differed. The court was not persuaded.

As to the employer’s first argument, the court found that this was a misapplication of McDonnell Douglas. At this stage, a plaintiff need only show that they had been replaced by a significantly younger employee, not that the replacement was chosen because of the plaintiff’s age. The age differential in this case was sufficient to meet the physician’s burden, observed the court.

With regard to the employer’s contention that the younger doctor did not replace the physician because he was hired to split his time between two facilities, the court noted that the physician began working at McKeesport exclusively six months into his tenure. It further explained that the timeline weighed against the employer’s argument, noting that the executive’s email stating his plans for nonrenewal was sent on December 10, while the employment offer to the younger doctor was made on December 15. Accordingly, the court found the physician had successfully established his prima facie case.

Reason for nonrenewal. Shifting the burden to the employer to show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not renewing the physician’s contract, it cited a pattern of interpersonal and clinical issues occurring in 2020, which was sufficient to meet its burden.

Pretext. To show that the employer’s proffered reason was pretextual, the physician pointed to the age-related comments asserting that he was “not long for our world” and “dead wood” as being contemporaneous with the decision not to renew his contract. He further alleged that the employer had “engineered a false paper trail” to justify replacing him with a younger doctor, noting that the executive’s emails from November 19 and December 10 stated that the plan was to not renew his contract. However, the medication error occurred on December 10 and the charting incident occurred was brought to the executive’s attention on December 19.

In addition, the physician alleged the employer had changing rationales for its decision, initially telling him that his contract was not being renewed due to “restructuring,” then later stating its decision was based on the physician’s “misconduct.”

Favorable treatment. To further bolster his pretext argument, the physician contended that the employer’s physician assistance program was applied unevenly between older and younger doctors. One proffered comparator, a 43-year-old, was required to enroll in the program after using racially offensive terms in the workplace. Upon completion of the program, he retained his employment. Another comparator, a 67-year-old, was terminated after completing the program for behavior that the physician contended was less egregious.

Taken together, the court concluded that a reasonable jury could view the evidence as suggesting that age-based animus was the determinative influence on the employer’s decision not to renew his contract. As such, the employer’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

The case is No. 2:23-cv-00856.

Judge: Hornak, M.

Attorneys: Andrew Lacy (Law Offices of Andrew Lacy) for Emile Chreky. Jennifer S. Park (Dentons Cohen & Grigsby) for University of Pittsburgh Physicians.

Companies: University of Pittsburgh Physicians

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination Discharge PennsylvaniaNews