Dawn Boynton v. ClearChoice MD, MSO, LLC and ClearChoiceMD, PLLC
216 A.3d 1243
Vt.2019Background
- Boynton worked as a medical assistant at ClearChoiceMD and reported that a supervising PA (J.S.) said, after a distraught patient left, that “it would have been better to let [the patient] get hit by traffic.”
- Boynton followed the patient outside, calmed him, and an ambulance transported the patient; she reported J.S.’s comment to clinic management.
- The next month Boynton was terminated; employer cited violation of a no-smoking policy near the entrance; Boynton alleges the smoking reason was pretext and the true reason was retaliation for her report.
- Boynton sued for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and wrongful termination in violation of public policy (whistleblower protection); defendants moved to dismiss under V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).
- Trial court dismissed: held handbook established at-will employment (no modification), covenant claim unavailable, and the reported comment did not implicate patient safety or handbook/statutory whistleblower protections.
- Supreme Court majority affirmed dismissal; two justices dissented, arguing the complaint plausibly alleged a handbook-based promise and a public-policy whistleblower claim that should survive dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer breached covenant of good faith and fair dealing by firing an at-will employee for reporting J.S. | Boynton: handbook’s anti-retaliation clause created an enforceable expectation against termination for protected reports; firing for reporting breached covenant | ClearChoiceMD: Boynton was at-will; no contractual modification; covenant claim unavailable for unmodified at-will employment | Majority: No. Boynton admitted at-will status and did not show handbook modified it; covenant claim fails |
| Whether termination violated public policy as a whistleblower claim | Boynton: reporting the PA’s comment invoked professional/ethical norms and handbook/statutory whistleblower protections; termination chills reporting and endangers patients | ClearChoiceMD: Comment did not harm patients or affect care; handbook/statute whistleblower protections do not cover this report | Majority: No. Comment concerned a past event and did not create reasonable belief of present/future patient danger; public-policy exception not met |
| Whether handbook’s whistleblower/anti-retaliation provision created a viable claim | Boynton: handbook promise not to tolerate adverse action for good-faith reports created a contractual protection applicable here | ClearChoiceMD: Even if handbook exists, the reported comment didn’t endanger health/safety so policy not triggered | Majority: No. The alleged report did not concern threats to safety as required by the handbook; claim fails |
| Whether facts as alleged survive 12(b)(6) (pleading sufficiency) | Boynton: complaint and reasonable inferences plausibly allege protected report and retaliatory firing; dismissal premature | ClearChoiceMD: Allegations, even if true, don’t show protected activity or contract modification | Majority: Dismissal proper because complaint cannot reasonably be construed to show protected activity or handbook violation; dissenters would have let claim proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ross v. Times Mirror, 665 A.2d 580 (Vt. 1995) (at-will employees may be discharged unless modified or discharge violates clear public policy)
- LoPresti v. Rutland Reg'l Health Servs., Inc., 865 A.2d 1102 (Vt. 2004) (covenant of good faith not generally available to unmodified at-will employees; handbook may alter expectations)
- Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc., 819 A.2d 703 (Vt. 2002) (employer may assume contractual obligations via handbook; clear handbook terms may modify at-will status)
- Payne v. Rozendaal, 520 A.2d 586 (Vt. 1986) (public-policy exception requires termination for reasons contrary to clear and compelling public policy)
- Gilman v. Maine Mut. Fire Ins., 830 A.2d 71 (Vt. 2003) (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal: accept factual allegations and reasonable inferences)
- Bock v. Gold, 959 A.2d 990 (Vt. 2008) (appellate review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is de novo)