Green v. Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, Inc.
944 N.E.2d 184
Mass. App. Ct.2011Background
- Green was hired in June 2005 as a medical secretary in Harvard Vanguard’s physical therapy department at Kenmore Square.
- Walsh promised Green a forty-hour workweek despite the formal 20-hour position, which Green relied on in accepting the job.
- Green reported Walsh’s oral promise to HR when Walsh allegedly objected to him reporting concerns.
- Guarnieri told Green that Walsh lacked authority to promise more hours; Walsh threatened him with retaliation and used a racial slur in a confrontation.
- Guarnieri later urged Green to resign and offered severance; Green signed a resignation and an accompanying salary continuation agreement including a release of claims.
- After resignation, Guarnieri allegedly facilitated a cardiology department interview, Green was hired, and a new set of performance concerns arose leading to a further “letter of concern.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the release bars Green’s discrimination claim | Green argues the release is not a complete integration and/or was fraudulently induced, excusing performance. | Harvard Vanguard contends the release is a complete, integrated contract and bars pre-release discrimination claims. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the release issue. |
| Whether Harvard Vanguard breached the release by failing to provide suitable employment | Green asserts oral promises to find him suitable employment after resignation. | Harvard Vanguard contends no such promise formed part of the contract. | Material facts exist; breach could excuse release and allow claims. |
| Whether Green was fraudulently induced to sign the release | Guamieri allegedly induced signing with false intent to find Green suitable employment. | Release validity remains; fraud may render release voidable. | Fact issues exist on fraudulent inducement. |
| Whether Green’s retaliation claim survives summary judgment | Retaliation occurred when he was allegedly targeted after filing MCAD complaint. | Post-release actions in cardiology are unrelated; no adverse action proven. | There is a genuine issue of material fact requiring trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Augis Corp. v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 75 Mass. App. Ct. 398 (2009) (hostile environment framework under c. 151B applied; single-instance severe conduct actionable)
- Thomas O’Connor Constructors, Inc. v. Massachusetts Commn. Against Discrimination, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 549 (2008) (severe or pervasive standard for hostile-work-environment claims in Massachusetts)
- Holmes Realty Trust v. Granite City Storage Co., 25 Mass. App. Ct. 272 (1988) (integration of contracts; ambiguous or surrounding terms may affect parol evidence)
- Wang Labs., Inc. v. Docktor Pet Centers, Inc., 12 Mass. App. Ct. 213 (1981) (fact-based assessment of whether an agreement is fully integrated)
- Cabot Corp. v. AVX Corp., 448 Mass. 629 (2007) (ratification/waiver doctrine; intent essential; repudiation timing considerations)