Skip to main content
The former, short-lived CEO of the Oregon Health & Science University hospital and clinics was fired over “professionalism and communications issues, not serious misconduct,” OHSU said in court documents this week, the clearest public statements it has made on an ugly matter that rocked the institution several months ago.
The statement came as part of a lawsuit filed by the medical center to block the release of records tied to the firing. After WW reported on the matter, Oregon Public Broadcasting sought additional records on the case, and now OHSU is saying those investigative files should remain confidential.
The matter at hand became public April 3, when OHSU President Shereef Elnahal announced that Tarek Salaway no longer worked at OHSU effective immediately. Elnahal at the time gave no public rationale. But as WW later reported, notable staff left OHSU in the weeks leading up to Salaway’s termination. And documents obtained through a public records request show staff told investigators of concerning, unprofessional behavior from Salaway, and also described him as arrogant-seeming and a poor listener.
Salaway, however, cast the investigation that produced those statements as a rushed and irregular hit job based on hearsay and lies that was concocted by university leadership to justify firing him after he came forward with serious concerns. His lawyer Jackie Ford said OHSU excluded feedback from nurses and executive leaders from Black and LGBTQ+ groups who “enthusiastically supported Mr. Salaway’s leadership and the accountability he brought forward across the organization.”
In fact, Salaway and his lawyer have maintained, he was fired in retaliation for raising concerns about patient safety issues and a work environment that was, among other things, hostile to female and Black leaders at OHSU.
OHSU denies firing him for this reason, and Salaway has yet to provide WW with evidence for his claims. But reached for comment for this article, his lawyer Ford said it could be found in Salaway’s “19 page testimony within OHSU records,” which she said detail his observations.
Ford did not provide this document to WW, but suggested that it is among the files at the center of the saga’s latest chapter.
On April 15, the day WW published its story on the OHSU investigation into Salaway, Oregon Public Broadcasting sought various records tied to the firing.
It received the records previously released to WW. It also sought a “full 360 review and environment report” and also “any notes or statements you have from Salaway as part of that file.”
But in early May, OHSU declined to release those records, citing an Oregon law that exempts records from release that are tied to “a personnel discipline action, or materials or documents supporting that action” unless “the public interest requires disclosure in the particular instance.”
On appeal from OPB, the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office determined that the state law did not in fact justify withholding those records, and ordered OHSU to release them, while allowing for redactions of names and identifying information.
“It is difficult to conceive of a stronger case for the public interest than the removal, by the institution, of the chief executive of OHSU Health after less than four month,” wrote Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office General Counsel Adam Gibbs in a June 2 order, adding that, “the public’s interest is not in the bare fact of a personnel action, which is already known, but in understanding how and why OHSU’s president concluded that its newly hired hospital chief executive could not continue in the role.”
On June 9, OHSU informed the DA’s office it would be seeking an injunction overturning the order in Multnomah County Circuit Court—which it did Tuesday in the lawsuit against OPB.
“The public interest in disclosure of the requested documents does not outweigh the dual interest of OHSU and its personnel in confidentiality,” OHSU argued in the complaint. “The already-disclosed witness statements reveal that professionalism and communication issues during Salaway’s tenure were the crux conduct leading to the termination.”
OHSU emphasized that the “personnel discipline issue presented by Salaway’s discharge involves a single employee. It does not involve OHSU’s management of its public employees, a pattern or an accumulation of repeated disciplinary violations, or any systemic misconduct within OHSU.”
OPB sees things differently. It put out a statement Tuesday in which it described its decision to request the records as an example of the outlet upholding its responsibility to the public, and cast the OHSU effort to block the release of those records as an assault on the press.
OPB noted that the suit came after the media outlet had already won its appeal. And yet, it said in summary, rather than follow the order of the DA’s office, OHSU declined to produce the documents and has brought a lawsuit against OPB.
“Oregon’s public records law allows requesters to seek review of a public body’s refusal to release records. When the public body then sues a requester because the requester prevailed, this contradicts the foundational concepts of open government. Requesters who prevail with their district attorney reviews should not be required to defend themselves in court, particularly not if they are individuals or media entities operating in the public interest.”
