The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's summary judgment in favor of Temple University Hospital in an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Dr. Judy Pan, a surgical resident. The appellate court found no error in the lower court's dismissal of Pan's state and federal discrimination claims.
In a non-precedential opinion filed Jan. 5, 2026, Circuit Judge Paul Matey wrote that the court saw "no error" in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's ruling and would affirm the summary judgment. The brief decision marks the conclusion of a case that originated in 2022 when Pan filed suit against the hospital.
The dispute centered on Temple University Hospital's academic policies for surgical residents and their application to Dr. Pan during her residency training. According to court records, Temple had adopted a policy placing second-year residents who scored below the 20th percentile on the American Society of Plastic Surgery In-Service Examination on academic probation. The policy also required third-year residents falling below the same threshold to wait one year before seeking board certification.
Dr. Pan scored below the minimum 20th percentile threshold on the ASPS Exam as both a second-year and third-year resident, subjecting her to the hospital's academic requirements. The hospital's Resident Evaluation and Promotion Policy gave the clinical competency committee authority to place residents "on warning, remediation, or probation" when performance fell short of standards.
Pan's lawsuit alleged that Temple's actions against her constituted discrimination and retaliation in violation of both state and federal employment laws. The specific nature of the alleged discrimination was not detailed in the appellate court's brief opinion, which is marked as "not precedential" under Third Circuit rules.
The case was originally heard by U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who granted summary judgment in favor of Temple University Hospital. Summary judgment is typically granted when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Pan appealed the district court's decision to the Third Circuit, which heard the case under Local Appellate Rule 34.1(a), a procedure used for cases submitted without oral argument. The three-judge panel that decided the case included Circuit Judges Patty Shwartz, Paul Matey, and Tamika Montgomery-Reeves.
The appellate court's decision was submitted for consideration on Nov. 12, 2025, and filed just under two months later on Jan. 5, 2026. The brief nature of the opinion suggests the court found the legal issues straightforward and that Temple's position was well-supported by the record.
Employment discrimination cases in academic medical settings often involve complex questions about whether adverse actions were based on legitimate academic concerns or impermissible discrimination. Hospitals and medical training programs typically defend such cases by pointing to objective performance standards and the need to maintain rigorous training requirements to ensure patient safety and professional competence.
The Third Circuit's affirmance means that Dr. Pan's claims have been definitively rejected at both the trial and appellate levels. While the opinion is designated as non-precedential, meaning it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases, it may still provide guidance to other courts facing similar disputes between medical residents and their training institutions.
The case highlights the challenges faced by medical residents who struggle with standardized examinations and the potential for discrimination claims when academic consequences follow poor performance. Medical residency programs must balance their obligation to maintain training standards with compliance requirements under federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
Temple University Hospital, which operates as part of the Temple Health system in Philadelphia, successfully defended against all of Pan's claims. The hospital's legal team was not identified in the court documents, nor were Pan's attorneys.
The decision comes amid ongoing discussions in the medical education community about fairness in resident evaluation and the potential for bias in academic assessment processes. Some advocacy groups have raised concerns about whether standardized testing and evaluation methods may disproportionately impact residents from certain backgrounds.
For Dr. Pan, the appellate court's decision represents the end of her legal challenge against Temple University Hospital. The ruling means that the hospital's academic policies and their application to her residency training have been deemed legally permissible by both the trial court and the federal appeals court.
The case record indicates that Pan's residency experience at Temple was governed by clearly established policies regarding examination performance and academic standing. The hospital's ability to successfully defend the case at summary judgment suggests that its policies were properly implemented and that Pan was unable to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine factual dispute about discriminatory treatment.
The Third Circuit's brief treatment of the appeal indicates that the court found the legal and factual issues well-settled in favor of Temple University Hospital, bringing this employment discrimination dispute to a definitive close.