Tuli v. Brigham & Women's Hospital
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18003
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Tuli was hired by Brigham and Women's Hospital in 2002 as an associate neurosurgeon; Day became department chair in 2007.
- Tuli served as QARM representative; she investigated Day's cases and reported to the Board in some instances.
- Tuli claimed Day's conduct toward women was demeaning and sexualized, while she alleged lack of promotion to Director of Spine.
- Beginning 2005–2007, Tuli raised concerns to CMO Whittemore about Day; a 2007 credentials review conditioned reappointment on outside evaluation by PHS.
- Tuli filed suit in 2007 seeking injunction; the district court granted it; jury later awarded damages on several claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hospital is liable for a hostile work environment. | Tuli, as a female surgeon, faced pervasive gender-based harassment by Day and Kim. | The alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect conditions of employment. | Yes; evidence supported a hostile environment and continuing-violation theory. |
| Whether the Hospital's actions constitute retaliation against protected activity. | Obligatory counseling and committee actions followed Tuli's complaints and investigations. | Counseling and credential actions were not adverse actions or causally connected to protected activity. | Yes; jury could infer adverse impact and causal link to protected conduct. |
| Whether Day tortiously interfered with advantageous relations. | Day's interference with credentialing and his biased testimony harmed Tuli's employment prospects. | Interference driven by legitimate assessment and departmental concerns. | Yes; proper to submit motive and malice to the jury; $20,000 awarded sustained. |
| Whether Day committed defamation against Tuli. | Day's statements about nurses avoiding Tuli during committee proceedings were false and reckless. | Statements were non-actionable opinion or privileged unless reckless. | Yes; jury could find recklessness; nominal $1 defamation award sustained. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion on remittitur and damages. | Damages were warranted for substantial emotional harm and retaliation. | Damages were excessive and should be remitted. | No; remittitur not warranted; damages affirmed as within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (continuing violation doctrine permits considering acts within the filing period for liability)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation standards and cognizable harm considerations)
- Aponte-Rivera v. DHL Solutions (USA), Inc., 650 F.3d 803 (1st Cir. 2011) (analytical framework for hostile environment and employer liability)
- McMillan v. Mass. Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 1998) (causation and retaliation standards in employment discrimination)
- O'Rourke v. City of Providence, 235 F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 2001) (hostile environment framework and actionable offensive conduct)
- Marrero v. Goya de P.R., Inc., 304 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2002) (retaliation and employer liability principles in a hospital setting)
- Boothby v. Texon, Inc., 414 Mass. 468 (Mass. 1993) (limits on reliance on personal dislike in interference claims)
- Weber v. Cmty. Teamwork, Inc., 434 Mass. 761 (Mass. 2001) (malice and improper motive in interference with contract)
- Sweeney v. Westvaco Co., 926 F.2d 29 (1st Cir. 1991) (emotional injury damages and Massachusetts context)
- Koster v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 181 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 1999) (depression and damages considerations in employment disputes)
- Labonte v. Hutchins & Wheeler, 424 Mass. 813 (Mass. 1997) (economic damages framework under Massachusetts law)