A Boise medical practice fired her. She called it retaliation. Here’s what happened next
A Treasure Valley neurosurgery practice sought to dismiss a year-old jury verdict that found it guilty of wrongfully terminating an employee who planned to report harassment and discrimination.
The employee said she was fired as retaliation. The practice said it was because she had behavioral issues and a bad attitude.
In September, a federal judge denied Neuroscience Associates’ request for a new trial and directed verdict. A directed verdict is given when a judge determines the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence, allowing the case to be dismissed.
Brianna Colo, a former surgery scheduler at Neuroscience Associates, was fired in December 2018 after working for a decade at the practice’s clinic at 6140 W. Curtisian Ave. in Boise.
Weeks later, she filed a charge of discrimination with the Idaho Human Rights Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Then she sued the practice, alleging she was retaliated against for planning to report sexual harassment and discrimination based on national origin.
Neuroscience Associates performs brain and spinal surgeries for things like tumors, aneurysms and scoliosis at a handful of offices in southern Idaho.
During the trial in the U.S. District Court in Boise in 2022, Colo testified that she confided in a colleague about her concerns, sharing that a male supervisor had commented on her appearance, touched her inappropriately and called her and another Hispanic coworker “illegal aliens.” She said she also told the colleague she was preparing to report the behavior to the business’s human resources department, according to a June ruling filed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Debora K. Grasham following the outcome of the trial.
Colo claimed she was fired as retaliation.
But Neuroscience Associates maintained she was fired because of a history of behavioral problems, including negative attitude and insubordination.
Neuroscience Associates said that, two months before it fired her, it became aware of a “toxic” social media post Colo made about the company and its chief operating officer. The practice said it chose not to fire her at the time and instead scheduled a “serious discussion” with her to discuss her actions on Nov. 28, 2018.
The day before the meeting was when Colo confided in her colleague. That colleague later testified that Colo did not give any indication that she was going to file a complaint.
Colo testified during the trial that the issue regarding the social media post was “resolved” at the Nov. 28 meeting with three supervisors, and “no other issues were raised or discussed.”
Neuroscience Associates said during the trial that the supervisors specifically asked Colo if she had other concerns about the workplace that she wanted to voice, and Colo said nothing.
Colo testified that she didn’t voice her complaints about discrimination and harassment then because she feared retaliation. At the end of the meeting, everyone agreed to move forward with a “fresh start” and “clean slate,” according to the ruling.
Days later, the colleague Colo had confided in told supervisors about their conversation. One said, in response, “(W)e all need to be careful and watch what we say and do.”
On December 6, 2018, the clinic’s physician partners voted unanimously to fire Colo. According to the ruling, no disciplinary actions occurred between the meeting with Colo and her supervisors, where she was given a clean slate, and her termination about a week later.
A jury returned a verdict in Colo’s favor, awarding her $300,000 in back pay, based on her prior salary and benefits, and $1,350,000 in front pay, the amounts of which Grasham noted were advisory. The judge later reduced the front pay to $130,333 based on Colo’s age, training and experience at the time she was fired.
Colo asked the judge to reconsider the amount of front pay awarded, but Grasham denied the request in an October ruling that said, “Colo does not point to any reason why she would be entitled to an award of front pay essentially until retirement, especially given her young age and work experience.”
Front pay encompasses damages that are paid as compensation for training or relocating to another position.
The ruling denying Neuroscience Associates’s motion for a new trial and directed verdict, signed by Grasham, said Colo engaged in a protected activity when she complained to a colleague about workplace conduct she believed to be illegal.
It also said that, based on evidence from emails and other conversations, as well as the close proximity between Colo’s complaint and her firing, a jury could infer that the practice knew about her complaint and terminated her employment as retaliation.
A Statesman reporter called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seeking information on the status of Colo’s complaint. After waiting on hold for about 25 minutes, the reporter hung up. The agency said in response to a follow-up email that it could not comment on the status of the case, and that charges made to the commission are confidential.
Ben Earwicker, an administrator at the Idaho Human Rights Commission, said by phone that the commission investigated the complaint Colo filed and found probable cause to believe that discrimination and retaliation did occur. He said the case was closed in June 2020.
The commission tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a settlement between the two parties before the matter was taken to court. Its findings were cited by the judge in pretrial rulings.
Earwicker added that the commission generally does not release information regarding individual complaints but because the findings in the case were made public through the lawsuit, he felt comfortable doing so.
A voicemail message left with a senior officer at Neuroscience Associates seeking comment was not returned. Attempts to locate Colo for comment were unsuccessful.
