Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hospital
12 N.E.3d 1090
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Bulwer, a black Belizean physician, joined Mount Auburn Hospital's internal medicine residency in August 2005 on a one-year contract with possible extension to year two.
- Eight months in, hospital advised no second-year extension but allowed him to finish the first year; one month later Bulwer was terminated.
- Bulwer sued for discrimination (G. L. c. 151B), breach of contract, defamation, and tortious interference; summary judgment was entered for defendants on all but discrimination and breach claims.
- ACGME rules required written nonrenewal notice and grievance/due process; hospital had procedures Bulwer attempted to use during his residency.
- Bulwer had strong evaluations in emergency medicine but several negative MICU evaluations; mixed reviews in other rotations; a six-point remediation plan was issued but largely not followed.
- Ad hoc committee reviews occurred in four sessions; Bulwer attended only the first; the termination decision was made after the final session and purportedly outside the committee process.
- Post-termination communications included mass emails describing the process and reaffirming nonrenewal; the Board of Registration in Medicine was notified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination: was pretext shown for Bulwer's termination? | Bulwer asserts race/national origin biased evaluations and actions biased his termination. | Hospital argues performance-based grounds; legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons supported by multiple evaluators. | There is pretext evidence; summary judgment inappropriate on discrimination. |
| Breach of contract: did MAH breach nondiscrimination and due process provisions? | MAH violated ACGME nondiscrimination and internal due process, and failed in remediation and notice practices. | Remediation and due process provided; any breaches were immaterial or not causally linked to dismissal. | Sufficient evidence to submit breach of contract to a jury. |
| Defamation: did MAH lose its privilege for the two post-termination emails? | Emails falsely implying Bulwer's incompetence harmed his reputation. | Emails were privileged to inform staff of departure; no malice proven and privilege preserved. | Summary judgment for defamation affirmed; privilege not lost. |
| Retaliation: did Bulwer's protected activity cause adverse action? | Actions followed protected complaints/disputes and MCAD filing. | No protected activity linked to termination; provisioning of an appeal option undermines causal link. | Retaliation claims fail; no causal connection shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matthews v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 426 Mass. 122 (Mass. 1997) (burden-shifting framework; pretext evidence requires more than subjective complaints)
- Sullivan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 444 Mass. 34 (Mass. 2005) (discourages summary judgment in discrimination cases; credibility concerns)
- Blare v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Boston, Inc., 419 Mass. 437 (Mass. 1995) (employer's non-discriminatory reasons; pretext requires more than poor performance)
- Wheelock College v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 371 Mass. 130 (Mass. 1976) (McDonnell Douglas framework applicability; evidence standards in discrimination)
- Lipchitz v. Raytheon Co., 434 Mass. 493 (Mass. 2001) (statistical/compare-analyses in discrimination cases; comparators)