Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—D.S.C.: Physician’s retaliation suit against Shriners Hospital can proceed, (Sep 29, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

The physician plausibly alleged a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim: he “was asked by [his] employer to violate the law, [he] refused to do so, and [he] was terminated as a result.”

The federal district court for the District of South Carolina denied Shriners Hospitals for Children’s motion to dismiss a suit brought by a former employee alleging his termination was in retaliation for “his refusal to violate basic standards of competent and ethical medical care,” citing provisions in the South Carolina Code of Medical Ethics requiring medical professionals to act in the best interest of their patients. The court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss after finding that the physician plausibly alleges a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (WDPP) claim: he “was asked by [his] employer to violate the law, [he] refused to do so, and [he] was terminated as a result” (Mendelow v. Shriners Hospitals for Children, No. 6:26-cv-02191-SAC (D.S.C. Sept. 23, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff is a former surgeon with Shriners, who brought a suit alleging that he was terminated in retaliation for objecting to and refusing to adopt “harmful and unethical practices” mandated by Shriners. The physician began practicing with Shriners in January 2012 at its hospital in Greenville, South Carolina (the “Hospital”), serving as a pediatric orthopedic surgeon. His complaint alleged that he was “highly regarded and recognized as an outstanding physician” at Shriners and was the most productive spine surgeon in the entire Shriners system from 2014 to 2016.

In February 2015, Shriners hired a new Chief of Staff and the complaint alleged that this accelerated Shriners shifting the hospital’s business model toward cost containment over pediatric patient care. The physician alleged that Shriners pressured staff to lengthen treatment and overnight admissions, denied it necessary resources, limited use of a high-cost metal rod regardless of medical necessity, demanded lower surgical thresholds rather than emphasis on non-surgical options, pressured incomplete chart documentation so bills could be sent early, and imposed an arbitrary 5:00 p.m. surgical deadline that sometimes forced second-stage surgeries.

The physician alleged that he “repeatedly objected” to the new CEO’s new policies—both in general and those targeting him specifically—and in 2019 filed a grievance concerning the “unethical and unsafe conditions” the CEO imposed on his medical practice. The physician alleged that as a result, he “faced a barrage of retaliation designed to impose an ethical catch-22”: he could either follow the new rules despite the unlawful impact on patient care or continue to provide competent medical care in violation of the rules. The physician was terminated on June 22, 2023.

The physician filed an Amended Complaint on June 26, 2026, asserting a single cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy. South Carolina has a public policy exception to at-will employment. The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that a WDPP claim arises when “retaliatory discharge of an at-will employee constitutes violation of a clear mandate of public policy,” under Mathis v. Brown & Brown of S.C., Inc., 698 S.E.2d 773, 778 (S.C. 2010). The court further held that this public-policy exception “is invoked when an employer requires an at-will employee, as a condition of retaining employment, to violate the law.”

It was further noted that, since this exception was created, “[c]ourts have invoked the public policy exception in two instances: (1) where an employer requires an employee, as a condition of continued employment, to break the law, and (2) where an employer’s termination is itself illegal.”

Assuming without deciding that a violation of the South Carolina Code of Medical Ethics is considered a violation of the law for the purposes of a WDPP claim, the court concluded that, for purposes of deciding a motion to dismiss, the physician was not required to definitively prove Shriners’ actions required him to violate the law. Rather, the physician’s allegations must only give Shriners’ “fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”

As such, the court concluded that the physician pled sufficient facts to plausibly allege a WDPP claim: he “was asked by [his] employer to violate the law, [he] refused to do so, and [he] was terminated as a result.” The court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss.

The case is No. 6:26-cv-02191-SAC.

Judge: Clarke, S.

Attorneys: Jonathan Landesman (Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall and Furman PC) for Michael Mendelow. Kristin Starnes Gray (Ford and Harrison LLP) for Shriners Hospitals for Children.

Cases: Retaliation Discharge StateLawClaims SouthCarolinaNews