Colorado's second-highest court ruled on Thursday that a jury will decide whether Centura Health Corp. fired a physician for violating its policy against aid-in-dying, as Centura claims, or for events outside of her work, as the doctor claims.
Barbara Morris' lawsuit against her former employer attracted significant attention from Christian organizations, which argued that faith-based healthcare providers should not be forced to dispense medication enabling the death of terminally-ill patients, as Colorado law allows.
However, both Morris and the Court of Appeals countered that the litigation was not a referendum on the voter-approved End-of-Life Options Act, nor did it implicate Centura's religious exercise under the First Amendment. Instead, Morris' case focused on a narrow question: Is she entitled to 90 days' pay because Centura fired her for reasons not outlined in her employment agreement?
"Centura’s reason for terminating Morris matters. If Centura fired Morris because it concluded that her actions in the hospital violated hospital policy, that is one case," wrote Judge W. Eric Kuhn for a three-member panel of the Court of Appeals.
But based on the information gathered to date, he continued, "we cannot say that this evidence conclusively establishes that she violated Centura’s aid-in-dying policy."
In 2016, a Colorado ballot initiative passed to allow terminal patients with a life expectancy of six months or less to request and administer medication to voluntarily end their lives. The law contains safeguards to qualify for the medication, including multiple forms of confirmation and the participation of a second physician.
Last year, 316 people received prescriptions for aid-in-dying medication, according to the state's health department.
The law also permits healthcare providers to not participate. Likewise, facilities may bar their physicians from writing aid-in-dying prescriptions. Centura, which is a faith-based operator, chose that route in accordance with the Catholic Church's prohibition on "euthanasia and assisted suicide."
Morris filed her lawsuit in 2019. At the time, she had consulted with terminally-ill patient Cornelius "Neil" Mahoney, who is now deceased. Mahoney wanted to pursue aid-in-dying, but Centura's Ethical and Religious Directives stipulated that Catholic healthcare providers "may never condone or participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide in any way."
Morris and Mahoney filed a lawsuit against Centura seeking a court declaration that the health system could not prohibit Morris from providing aid-in-dying care to Mahoney or penalize her for doing so.
Five days later, Centura fired Morris from her job at St. Anthony Hospital.
"(Y)ou have encouraged a morally unacceptable option," her termination letter read. "It is our religious judgment that your conduct in relation to Mr. Mahoney violates the religious principles upon which the Hospital operates and warrants the termination of your employment for cause."
Morris then amended her lawsuit to assert new claims against her ex-employer. Specifically, she alleged Centura wrongfully discharged her because of her lawsuit, and not for any breach of policy. She also claimed Centura's actions violated Colorado's Lawful Off-Duty Activities Statute, which generally prohibits terminations based on employees' conduct outside of their workplace.
Arapahoe County District Court Judge Peter F. Michaelson granted Centura's motion for summary judgment, finding the facts undisputedly allowed the health system to prevail under the law.
By meeting with Mahoney and determining he would qualify for aid-in-dying, "Morris condoned Mr. Mahoney's desire for AID and in doing so violated the ERDs which formed an essential condition of her employment," Michaelson wrote, adding that a "reasonable jury could not find other than that."
Morris then appealed. Several outside religious organizations — including the Catholic Medical Association, the Little Sisters of the Poor and the Christian Medical and Dental Associations — claimed Morris wanted to "require" Centura to employ her so that she may engage in euthanasia against the beliefs of the Catholic Church.
But Morris did not seek such a ruling from the Court of Appeals, and did not even dispute that Centura could terminate her for any reason. She only argued Centura had to pay her 90 days' severance if she did not actually violate its policy.
"So, the main questions on that claim are first, why did Centura terminate Dr. Morris? Second, did that reason constitute ‘cause’ under the contract? And third, if it did, did she really commit the act that they claim?" attorney Chip G. Schoneberger told the appellate panel during oral arguments last month.
Schoneberger argued his client did not actually "engage in the process" of qualifying Mahoney for aid-in-dying. Judge JoAnn L. Vogt quoted from Centura's Ethical and Religious Directives, which, in addition to prohibiting euthanasia, encourage that patients receive "the appropriate medical information" about their options.
"Couldn’t a juror potentially conclude that her initial conversations with the patient were to fulfill that portion of the policy? To make sure that that patient could make an informed decision about his future care?" Vogt asked.
Centura's attorney, Ian Speir, argued Morris "went beyond" that guidance with Mahoney.
Ultimately, the panel decided the question of why Centura fired Morris — and if it did so in a manner that triggered a severance payment — required a jury's evaluation of the facts. Consequently, Michaelson improperly granted summary judgment to the health system.
"If Centura terminated Morris for violating Centura’s aid-in-dying policy or breaching the ERD clause, in accordance with those policies, then it has no liability," Kuhn wrote in the April 13 opinion. If Centura fired her for filing a lawsuit and for her personal support of aid-in-dying, "then Centura owed her ninety days of pay."
Matthew Cron, an attorney for Morris, said his client was pleased with the panel's decision.
"Throughout this case, Centura has desperately attempted to thwart Dr. Morris’ ability to present this case to a jury because Centura knows that any reasonable jury will see right through its false and unlawful reasons for terminating Dr. Morris’ employment," he said.
Attorneys for Centura did not respond to an email seeking comment.
The case is Morris v. Centura Health Corporation et al.
