A University of Pittsburgh cardiologist who sued his employers for discrimination and retaliation after he published a journal article on affirmative action has lost his case.
The lawsuit, filed by Dr. Norman Wang against the University of Pittsburgh, UPMC, three physicians and a physicians’ group, was closed Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Marilyn Horan.
In a 22-page opinion, she found that Wang failed to prove any of his claims in the case that began in December 2020. Horan granted summary judgment on behalf of all of the defendants.
J. Robert Renner, an attorney for the Center for Individual Rights representing Wang, said Thursday they plan to appeal to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Spokesmen for both Pitt and UPMC declined to comment.
Wang became the director of the Clinical Electrophysiological Fellowship Program through UPMC in February 2017.
The lawsuit, seeking money damages for economic and emotional harm, alleged that Wang was targeted by his supervisors, the university and hospital system after he published the article “Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: Evolution of Race and Ethnicity Considerations for the Cardiology in the United States of America from 1969 to 2019,” in the Journal of the American Heart Association in March 2020.
In the article, Wang “asserted that the medical profession had not been successful in reaching its goals of increasing the percentages of underrepresented races and ethnicities in the medical profession generally, and cardiology in particular.”
He also alleged that the field of cardiology was violating anti-discrimination laws in how it used race as a factor in recruitment, admissions, hiring and promotion.
According to the judge’s summary of the case, officials at Pitt and UPMC did not learn of the article’s existence until July 29, 2020.
Two days later, Wang was removed from his position as the director of the fellowship by his supervisor, Dr. Samir Saba, the chief of cardiology at UPMC, and Dr. Kathryn Berlacher, the director of the cardiovascular fellowship training program at UPMC.
Berlacher and others were critical of Wang’s article and the Journal of the American Heart Association for publishing it and called on the publication to retract it.
Berlacher tweeted from the @PittCardiology account that she was a part of: “@PittCardiology I’m looking at you. What do we stand for? What do you think of this OPINION piece that misinterprets data and misquotes people? @JAHA_AHA this is scientifically invalid and racist.”
Berlacher also wrote: “@PittCardiology stands for diversity equity and inclusion across the board. This article uses misquotes, false interpretations and racist thinking to defend a single person’s conclusion. We are outraged that @JAHA_AHA published this shameful and infuriating piece.”
On Aug. 5, 2020, Saba, joined by other members of Pitt and UPMC, as well as a professor at Duke University School of Medicine, emailed the journal’s editor in chief asking for a retraction.
The journal retracted Wang’s article the next day.
He sued in federal court on Dec. 15, 2020, and then amended his lawsuit four times to include civil rights claims for a violation of his First Amendment rights, as well as retaliation.
Wang alleged that Saba and Berlacher restricted him from interacting with fellows, residents and medical students, and that his reputation was damaged by their actions.
However, to sustain his civil rights claim, the judge wrote, Wang was required to demonstrate that Saba and Berlacher were acting under the color of state law when they violated his right to free speech.
Horan said he could not. Instead, the court found that the actions taken to remove Wang as the director were executed by Saba and Berlacher in their roles as employees of University of Pittsburgh Physicians — a private entity.
Horan further noted that School of Medicine Dean Anantha Shekhar informed Wang in October 2020 that his removal as director did not restrict his ability to interact with students in any way.
Shekhar’s actions, the judge said, supported the notion that Saba and Berlacher were not acting within their university capacity when they removed Wang.
Wang remains at UPMC, where he continues to see patients and conducts research.
Horan also dismissed the retaliation claim, finding that the publication of Wang’s article was not a protected employment activity.
Renner, the attorney representing Wang, said he was disappointed in the judge’s decision, especially given that Horan did not cite any of the facts they provided in her written opinion.
“My concern is she really didn’t address the facts the plaintiff put in,” he said.