Doctor claims hospital fired him for reporting harassment—court says jury must decide
A federal appeals court revived a Kansas doctor’s retaliation lawsuit after he alleged he was fired for reporting sexual harassment at his hospital.
Dr. Matthew Byrnes, a former general surgeon and Chief Medical Officer at St. Catherine Hospital in Garden City, alleges he was terminated and reported to the Kansas Board of Healing Arts after he reported another doctor for sexual harassment of nurses. Byrnes claims his joint employers—St. Catherine Hospital and Centura Health Corporation—retaliated against him, rather than addressing the harassment complaint, setting off a series of events now under renewed legal scrutiny.
According to the complaint, Byrnes reported to hospital leadership that another physician at St. Catherine Hospital was sexually harassing nurses, citing incidents and concerns raised by staff. Byrnes alleges that hospital executives and medical leadership dismissed his concerns and began to scrutinize his own conduct. The complaint describes a series of meetings and communications in which Byrnes was told his allegations lacked merit and was later removed from his position as Chief Medical Officer.
The situation escalated when the hospital received a subpoena from the Kansas Board of Healing Arts regarding an anonymous complaint against Byrnes. An internal investigation was conducted by Centura Health executives, but Byrnes alleges he was not interviewed as part of this process, nor were the nurses who had raised concerns about harassment. The investigation instead focused on interviews with hospital administrators and physicians, several of whom had previously expressed personal or professional conflicts with Byrnes.
Shortly after this investigation, Byrnes was terminated “without cause.” He claims that the stated reasons for his dismissal—such as alleged patient care issues and changes to peer review procedures—were pretextual and inconsistent with his recent reappointment to the hospital’s medical staff. Byrnes further alleges that after his termination, the hospital referred several of his cases for outside peer review and reported four of them to the Kansas Board of Healing Arts. He claims these actions were not consistent with how other physicians’ cases were handled.
The complaint also notes differences in how peer review and reporting were conducted for other doctors, suggesting Byrnes was treated differently because of his protected activity. Byrnes’s claims include violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, specifically alleging retaliation for opposing unlawful employment practices.
The district court initially granted summary judgment to St. Catherine Hospital and Centura Health Corporation, finding insufficient evidence of retaliation. However, on October 30, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed this decision. The appellate court found that a reasonable jury could conclude the investigation and subsequent actions were pretextual and motivated by retaliatory animus. The case has been remanded for further proceedings.
This case highlights the importance of impartial investigations, consistent application of policies, and protections for employees who report workplace misconduct. The outcome serves as a reminder that retaliation claims can expose organizations to significant legal risk, especially when best practices in HR investigations are not followed.
