Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Northwest Arkansas Hospitals, LLC

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	CASE NO. 5:24-CV-5195
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS HOSPITALS, LLC d/b/a
NORTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER-BENTONVILLE 	DEFENDANT
OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court are Defendant Northwest Arkansas Hospitals, LLC’s partial
Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support (Docs. 27–28) and Plaintiff Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 30). For the reasons that follow,
Northwest Arkansas Hospitals’ Motion is GRANTED.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) brings this case on
behalf of Efrin Chavez, a surgical technician who was hired by Northwest Arkansas
Hospitals (“NWA Hospitals”) in January of 2022 for a position in the Labor and Delivery
Unit. (Doc. 26, ¶ 16). EEOC alleges that NWA Hospitals discriminated against Mr. Chavez
because of his sex (male), by subjecting him to different terms, conditions, or privileges
of employment and for his constructive discharge from the position when he resigned six
months later in July. Id. ¶¶ 54–57. NWA Hospitals moves to dismiss only the constructive
discharge, but not the sex discrimination, claim.
Surgical technicians assist medical professionals in the operating room. Under
Arkansas law, “on the-job-training” is “required” for surgical technicians, but they do not
need any formal certification to work in labor and delivery during vaginal births. Id. ¶¶ 17–
18. Then-19-year-old Chavez’s job responsibility in the labor and delivery unit included
“set[ting] up the tables with instruments, tak[ing] patient vitals, plac[ing] fetal monitors on
Case 5:24-cv-05195-TLB Document 48 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
the patient, clean[ing] the area post procedures, bath[ing] babies, assist[ing] nurses and
doctors during deliveries, and tak[ing] blood samples to the labs.” Id. ¶ 19. In his role as
an L&D tech, Mr. Chavez expected to “work with surgical instruments used in deliveries,
observe deliveries, and sterilize equipment.” Id. ¶ 20. Two doctors at NWA Hospitals
refused to allow Mr. Chavez to participate before, during, or after their patients’ deliveries.
Id. ¶¶ 21, 32–35. They made comments to other hospital employees indicating that they
were uncomfortable with male surgical technicians working in L&D. Id. ¶¶ 22–25. Other
doctors allowed Mr. Chavez to participate in their deliveries. Id. ¶ 30. According to the
EEOC, the fact that two doctors refused to allow Mr. Chavez into their patients’ delivery
rooms forced Mr. Chavez to quit his employment because the working conditions were
intolerable. Id. ¶ 48. Mr. Chavez felt “isolated and humiliated” when the two doctors’
patients were delivering and he was not allowed to participate. Id. ¶ 52. His feelings of
isolation and humiliation, coupled with the purported “lack of on-the-job training” made
Chavez’s working conditions intolerable and forced him to resign. Id. ¶¶ 54, 56.
NWA Hospitals asserts that the EEOC has failed to state a plausible constructive
discharge claim. Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court should dismiss a claim when it is not
supported by “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
To state a claim for constructive discharge, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) ‘he was
discriminated against by his employer to the point where a reasonable person in his
position would have felt compelled to resign,’ and (2) ‘he actually resigned.’” Norgren v.
Minn. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 96 F.4th 1048, 1056 (8th Cir. 2024) (quoting Green v.
Case 5:24-cv-05195-TLB Document 48 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Brennan, 578 U.S. 547, 555 (2016)). “The analysis involves consideration of ‘all of the
attendant circumstances, including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its
severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance;
and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance.’” Id.
(quoting Willis v. Henderson, 262 F.3d 801, 809 (8th Cir. 2001)).
EEOC has failed to plausibly allege facts sufficient to show that a reasonable
person in Mr. Chavez’s position would have felt compelled to resign. Mr. Chavez’s
subjective feelings of isolation and humiliation do not support the conclusion that his
working conditions would have been intolerable to a reasonable person. West v. Marion
Merrell Dow, Inc., 54 F.3d 493, 498 (8th Cir. 1995). EEOC’s allegation of intolerable
working conditions boil down to a single restriction: two doctors of the many whose
patients delivered babies at NWA Hospitals did not allow Mr. Chavez into the delivery
room with their patients. Apart from this restriction, EEOC does not allege that Mr. Chavez
was harassed or threatened because of his sex or given poor performance reviews
because of his exclusion from these deliveries. EEOC affirmatively alleges that Mr.
Chavez “trained in and assisted in” deliveries for the patients of at least three other
doctors. (Doc. 26, ¶ 30). In light of the attendant circumstances, namely the sensitive
patient privacy context, no reasonable employee in Mr. Chavez’s position would find his
exclusion from other deliveries intolerable.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that NWA Hospitals’ partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
27) is GRANTED and the constructive discharge claim in EEOC’s Amended Complaint
(Doc. 26) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Case 5:24-cv-05195-TLB Document 48 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 18 th day of December, 2025.
___________________________________
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-05195-TLB Document 48 Filed 12/18/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>