Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hosp. — Feb. 2016 (Summary)

EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION

Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hosp.
SJC–11875 (Mass. Feb. 29, 2016)

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts vacated summary judgment for a hospital and remanded proceedings to the trial court with regard to an African-American physician’s employment discrimination and breach of contract claims, holding the physician had presented sufficient evidence to raise a question of fact as to whether a hospital’s decision to not renew his contract was a pretext for racial discrimination and that the hospital breached his residency agreement. The physician, who received his medical training at the University of the West Indies, moved to the states and enrolled in a residency program at Mount Auburn Hospital. Through various rotations, the physician received both highly positive and highly negative reviews. Some physicians indicated he was very competent; another described him as “horrendous.” The hospital informed the physician that it would not renew his contract, because of concerns about his ability to analyze complex information, his inability to “build effective therapeutic relationships,” and his difficulty presenting information to other members of his teams. As required by the residency agreement the physician signed, an ad hoc committee was convened to review the hospital’s decision. However, the resident was only permitted to attend one of the three meetings, and no other resident served on the committee, in violation of the residency agreement. Ultimately, the committee confirmed the decision, and the physician’s contract was not renewed. The physician proceeded to file an employment discrimination suit.

The court found the physician presented sufficient evidence to create a fact question that the hospital’s reported reasons for not renewing his contract were pretextual. First, the court held that the widely different reviews of the physician’s performance could raise a fact question to the jury as to whether or not the contract decision was fueled by racial animus. Second, the court found evidence that the physician was treated differently from other foreign interns as evidence that the hiring decision was pretextual. The physician reported that while other foreign interns experienced similar negative evaluations, they were offered an opportunity to fix their performance. Third, an African-American psychiatrist at the hospital noted instances of more favorable treatment for white physicians, and explained he had seen white supremacist materials in a break room. Fourth, the court found that some of the ambiguous language present in the physician’s evaluation, considered in the context of a racial discrimination claim, could be considered racial animus. Comments such as the “intern was too confident for his own good” and the physician has “no capacity for self-assessment” were considered to have the possibility of creating a fact question for the jury, especially in light of the fact that another employee publicly berated the physician in an “inappropriate” way. Fifth, the hospital’s deviation from the procedure set forth in the residency agreement could also be considered evidence that the hospital’s purported reasons for firing the physician were pretextual.

With regard to the breach of contract claim, the court found the physician presented sufficient evidence to raise a fact question as to whether or not the hospital breached the residency agreement. The hospital’s failure to (1) place a resident on the ad hoc review committee, (2) allow the physician to participate in two days of the hearing, (3) notify the physician of additional concerns the ad hoc committee had regarding his performance, and (4) provide appropriate supervision and resources necessary for the physician to perform his work were all found to create a fact question as to whether the hospital breached its contract with the physician. Furthermore, the court held that the hospital failed to establish the absence of any issue of material fact as to whether the hospital violated its non-discrimination policy by failing to renew the physician’s contract.