Perez v. N. Terry Fayad, D.M.D., P.C.
101 F. Supp. 3d 129
| D. Mass. | 2015Background
- Dr. N. Terry Fayad, D.M.D., P.C. operated a dental practice; Fayad (owner/clinician) and his wife Mancini (office manager) supervised staff, including dental assistant Rhonda Healey.
- Healey’s duties included handling and disposing of contaminated needles; industry standard was to discard needles capped in a sharps container.
- In Oct. 2010 Fayad introduced an uncapping procedure (to reduce sharps volume); he demonstrated methods to staff. Healey returned from leave Nov. 15 and was shown the new technique.
- Healey objected to uncapping needles by hand, left the office Nov. 18 after discussing concerns with Mancini, and filed an OSHA safety and a section 11(c) whistleblower complaint on Nov. 18.
- OSHA inspected the office Nov. 23; within an hour of the inspector leaving, Mancini called and terminated Healey. The court found her employment status in flux until that call.
- The court found Fayad fired Healey in retaliation for filing the OSHA complaint, awarded back pay ($51,644.80), compensatory damages ($33,450.26), enjoined defendants from 11(c) violations, and ordered a workplace notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Healey engaged in protected activity under OSHA §11(c) | Healey filed an OSHA safety complaint Nov. 18, which is protected activity | Defendants did not dispute the filing but contested causation | Court: Filing was protected activity under §11(c) |
| Whether Healey’s termination was retaliatory | Termination occurred shortly after OSHA inspection; timing shows causation | Employer asserted legitimate reason: abandonment/breach of trust for leaving work Nov. 18 | Court: Employer’s reason was pretext; termination was retaliatory after discovery of complaint |
| When the termination occurred (date) | Secretary: termination occurred Nov. 23 after OSHA visit | Defendants: contend termination earlier or for abandonment | Court: Employment in flux until Mancini’s call on Nov. 23; that call was the termination event |
| Damages and individual liability | Secretary sought back pay, profit-sharing losses, emotional damages; sought liability against Fayad individually for back wages | Defendants disputed amounts and individual liability | Court: Awarded back wages to Fayad, P.C.; compensatory damages jointly and severally against both defendants; no punitive damages; Fayad not personally liable for back wages |
Key Cases Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003) (standards for awarding punitive damages)