Share This Article
Baxter Health and Interventional Pain Management Associates have agreed to pay $350,000 to settle a federal lawsuit alleging they illegally fired a physician assistant who supported a coworker’s sexual harassment complaint.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the lawsuit in 2023 against both Baxter Health and IPMA, claiming they retaliated against Hillary-Paige Potter after she participated in an investigation into sexual harassment allegations against Dr. Ronald Tilley, who co-owned IPMA at the time.
Under the consent decree filed Sept. 5 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, the defendants will pay Potter $175,000 in back pay and $175,000 in compensatory damages. Both companies deny any wrongdoing, stating they entered the agreement to avoid the expense and disruption of continued litigation.
“Nothing in this Consent Decree shall constitute a finding on the merits of the case or an admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Defendants,” the decree states.
According to the EEOC’s original complaint, Potter was hired by IPMA in February 2018 and received a $5,000 signing bonus from Baxter Health. The lawsuit alleged that Baxter Health handled Potter’s hiring paperwork and other employment actions.
In April 2019, a coworker complained to Potter that Dr. Tilley was sexually harassing her. Potter encouraged the employee to report the harassment to office manager Diane Holmes, who was then a Baxter employee, and advocated for notifying Dr. Ira Chatman, Tilley’s business partner, and Baxter’s human resources department.
Following an internal investigation in which Potter participated, Dr. Tilley took what was described as a “sabbatical.” He is no longer listed as working at IPMA. An internet search shows Tilley helped establish a new specialty clinic for White River Health in Mountain View in August.
The EEOC alleged that after Potter returned from maternity leave in July 2019, Dr. Chatman confronted her, saying “she was an instigator and that if he could prove she was the one who reported Tilley, she would never work in northwest Arkansas again.”
Chatman allegedly required Potter to begin driving to Harrison for work despite previously telling her she wouldn’t have to make the drive while she had an infant. He also allegedly took away her every-other-Friday off schedule.
On March 2, 2022, according to the lawsuit, Chatman informed Potter she needed to resign by June 29, 2022. The EEOC claimed Chatman wanted Potter to resign so Tilley could return to work at IPMA, telling her that she and Tilley could not work together because of Potter’s involvement in the sexual harassment complaint and that Tilley “held a grudge against her.”
The suit alleged Chatman told Potter she had “painted with the brush of being a rabble-rouser and brought all of this [sexual harassment stuff] and created a hostile work environment.”
When Potter declined to resign on April 5, 2022, and refused to sign a severance agreement prohibiting her from discussing the circumstances of her departure, she was fired on April 29, 2022.
Beyond the monetary settlement, the consent decree requires both companies to revise their written policies to expressly prohibit retaliation and sexual harassment. Within 60 days, they must conduct one-hour training sessions for all employees, human resources personnel, and supervisory staff at both Baxter and IPMA working at the pain clinic location.
The companies must also eliminate from Potter’s personnel and credentialing records all documents, entries, or references relating to the litigation and provide her with positive references if contacted by prospective employers.
The decree will remain in effect for two years, during which the companies must post an employee notice about Title VII rights and conduct annual anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation training.
In a statement provided when the lawsuit was first filed, Baxter Health had stressed its commitment to a harassment-free work environment while maintaining that Potter “was not, at any point in time, an employee of Baxter Health, and Baxter Health in fact had no involvement in or influence over IPMA’s decision to terminate the individual’s employment.”
The relationship between Baxter Health and IPMA had been a central issue in the case. Court documents show Baxter Health referred to IPMA as a “department of Baxter” on its website, IPMA used similar language on its letterhead, and IPMA billing was conducted through Baxter’s billing department.
The settlement resolves all EEOC claims arising from the lawsuit but does not affect any other potential discrimination charges pending before the Commission.
