Bulwer v. Mount Auburn Hospital
473 Mass. 672
| Mass. | 2016Background
- Bulwer, a black Belizean physician, trained abroad and sought US licensure; he joined Mount Auburn Hospital as a resident in Sept. 2005 under a one-year contract renewable for two years.
- ACGME nondiscrimination requirements and due-process procedures governed his residency; the hospital maintained a formal Ad Hoc Due Process Committee to review disciplinary actions.
- Bulwer received mixed evaluations across rotations (emergency positive, MICU mixed, cardiology highly variable) and faced concerns about patient safety and complex data analysis.
- The CCC recommended nonrenewal of his contract; he invoked the due-process policy, but the committee meetings were irregular and his participation was limited.
- In May 2006, the ad hoc committee affirmed nonrenewal; shortly thereafter, Bulwer was reportedly terminated immediately for alleged serious patient-safety concerns, with conflicting explanations later given.
- Bulwer later pursued a Massachusetts discrimination claim under G. L. c. 151B, § 4, and a breach-of-contract claim arising from the hospital’s adherence to the residency agreement and procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does pretext support survive summary judgment on discrimination claim? | Bulwer contends the hospital’s reasons are pretextual and discriminatory. | Mount Auburn asserts legitimate, nondiscriminatory grounds based on evaluations and patient-safety concerns. | Yes; triable issue of pretext exists. |
| Are there material facts showing discriminatory animus or its causation? | Bulwer presents inconsistent evaluations and disparate treatment of similarly situated nonblack interns. | Hospital credibly attributed adverse outcomes to performance; no causal link shown. | There are genuine issues of material fact for trial. |
| Did the hospital deviate from its written due-process and ACGME procedures in terminating Bulwer? | Procedural failures show discriminatory environment and breach of contract. | Any procedural lapses were harmless and did not affect outcome. | Procedural breaches sufficient to raise triable issues. |
| Does evidence support a breach-of-contract claim based on noncompliance with remediation and supervision provisions? | Remediation and supervision were not provided as promised to Bulwer. | Remediation offered; disparities with peers do not prove breach. | Material facts exist; trial is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lipchitz v. Raytheon Co., 434 Mass. 493 (Mass. 2001) (pretext framework allows inferencing discriminatory motive from facially neutral reasons)
- Wheelock College v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 371 Mass. 130 (Mass. 1976) (pretext may be inferred when facial reasons are not credible)
- Blare v. Husky Injection Molding Sys. Boston, Inc., 419 Mass. 437 (Mass. 1995) (discrimination case; burden-shifting and pretext considerations at summary judgment)
- Sullivan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 444 Mass. 34 (Mass. 2005) (standard for review of summary judgment in discrimination claims; de novo review)
- Matthews v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 426 Mass. 122 (Mass. 1997) (prima facie case and burden-shifting framework in discrimination cases)