Case Explained: MARK R. LEE, M.D. Plaintiff – v. WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CORPORATION, d/b/a University Health Associates Defendant –

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendant on Dr. Lee’s age discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the West Virginia Human Rights Act (WVHRA), his retaliation claims regarding his removal as Chair of Neurosurgery, his constructive discharge claim, and his breach-of-contract claim, but vacated summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings on his specific retaliation claim alleging that the defendant unlawfully accelerated his removal timeline. The court applied the “but-for” causation standard required by the Supreme Court in *Gross v. FBL Financial Services* and subsequent Fourth Circuit precedent (*Bandy v. City of Salem*) to determine whether age was the determining factor in the adverse employment action or whether retaliation was the actual reason for the challenged conduct. Regarding the age discrimination claim, the court held that Marsh’s comments about seeking a “younger” successor with a longer tenure constituted legitimate succession planning rather than direct evidence of animus, and that circumstantial evidence failed to support an inference of discrimination given that Lee was replaced by another individual in his sixties and the decisionmaker was older than Lee. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the removal itself or the reduction in benefits, as the plan to remove Lee predated his protected activity and the employment agreement authorized adjustments to compensation upon a change in administrative duties. However, the court identified a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether the decision to accelerate Lee’s removal from the summer of 2022 to September 1, 2021, was motivated by retaliation for his July and August 2021 letters alleging age discrimination. While the defendant argued the acceleration resulted from Lee’s conduct at a July 22 meeting, the record contained conflicting testimony regarding that meeting and UHA’s own removal notice suggested the decision followed Lee’s complaints of retaliation. Because summary judgment cannot resolve these factual conflicts, the court vacated the lower court’s ruling on this specific claim. The practical consequence is that the case will proceed to trial in the district court solely on the issue of whether the acceleration of Dr. Lee’s removal from his Chair position was retaliatory; all other claims are dismissed as a matter of law.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.