Shervin v. Partners Healthcare System, Inc.
2 F. Supp. 3d 50
D. Mass.2014Background
- Dr. Shervin, an orthopaedic surgeon, entered HCORP residency in 2003 and was placed on probation by Dr. Herndon in Feb. 2007 after a resident complaint; She alleges this probation was gender-biased.
- Executive Committee upheld/prolonged the probation and extended it for three months; Shervin sought review alleging procedural flaws and gender discrimination.
- Shervin pursued a grievance through Partners Education Committee and engaged mediation with tolling agreement to treat timely complaints as filed on April 1, 2009; discovery and internal investigations followed, including 2009 Grievance Subcommittee proceedings.
- Shervin filed MCAD/EEOC charges Oct. 2009 and filed this federal suit Apr. 2010, alleging discrimination and retaliation against Partners, MGPO, Harvard, Drs. Rubash and Herndon, and tortious interference with potential post-residency staff positions.
- Court addresses tolling under 804 C.M.R. § 1.10(2), continuing violations, and whether Harvard was an employer or joint employer; timing affects which defendants’ conduct are actionable.
- Court resolves summary judgment motions to allow timely discrimination/retaliation claims to proceed for some defendants and to limit others based on timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grievance exception applicability to c.151B claims | Shervin seeks tolling under 804 C.M.R. § 1.10(2) | Exception does not apply absent a formal union grievance | Grievance exception does not apply to nonunion grievance proceedings; tolling denied for c.151B claims |
| Continuing violation doctrine under Title VII | Anchoring events render prior acts actionable | Discrete pre-anchoring acts remain time-barred | Contin Viol. doctrine does not save Title VII claims; pre-anchoring discrete acts barred |
| Continuing violation doctrine under c.151B | Pattern of discrimination extends earlier acts | Mass. continuing violation similar to Morgan; pre-2008 acts time-barred | Mass. continuing violation doctrine does not render pre-2008 acts actionable under c.151B |
| Tolling agreement and Harvard's status | Harvard bound by tolling through Partners | Harvard not bound; only Partners signatory | Harvard not bound by tolling; December 30, 2008 is operative for Harvard; timing differs by defendant |
| Joint employer liability of Harvard | Harvard controlled day-to-day activities of HCORP physicians | Evidence insufficient to deem Harvard joint employer | Fact-sensitive; jury could find Harvard liable if control over day-to-day activities is established |
Key Cases Cited
- Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 441 Mass. 632 (Mass. 2004) (three-part continuing violation test; hostility environment context but limits apply to discrimination claims)
- Morgan v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (continuing violation doctrine for repeated conduct; discrete acts not actionable if time-barred)
- Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. 521 (Mass. 2001) (continuing violation for hostile environment under c.151B; pre-Morgan framework nuanced by later decisions)
- Hall v. Fidelity Investments, Inc., No. 06-BEM-02514 (MCAD Aug. 24, 2007) (MCAD 2007) (MCAD interpretation of grievance exception; binding for nonunion cases (Hall context))
- Miller v. N.H. Dept. of Corr., 296 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2002) (continuing violation analysis post-warning/discipline to assess timing of claims)