Chacon v. Brigham & Women's Hosp.

• Decision Date: 16 April 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 14–13235–FDS.
• Citation: 99 F.Supp.3d 207
• Parties: Sandra CHACON, Plaintiff, v. BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL and Rose Johnson, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

99 F.Supp.3d 207

Sandra CHACON, Plaintiff

v.BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL and Rose Johnson, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 14–13235–FDS.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Signed April 16, 2015.

Lynn A. Leonard, Melrose, MA, for Plaintiff.

Jeffrey A. Dretler, Amber L. Elias, Fisher & Phillips, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

SAYLOR, District Judge.

This is an employment dispute arising out of an allegedly wrongful termination. Plaintiff Sandra Chacon alleges that defendants violated both the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2611 et seq., and Massachusetts employment-discrimination law by terminating her from her position as a patient account representative at Brigham and Women's Hospital (“BWH”). Specifically, Chacon alleges that defendants both interfered with her FMLA rights and terminated her in retaliation for exercising those rights. In addition, she alleges wrongful termination in violation of public policy on the part of defendant BWH and intentional interference with advantageous business relations on the part of defendant Rose Johnson.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The following facts are taken from the complaint unless otherwise stated.

Sandra Chacon was hired by BWH on May 2, 2011, as a patient account representative in the medicine/patient services department. (Compl. at ¶ 8). The position involved extensive telephone interaction with patients. (Id. ).

Defendant Rose Johnson was Chacon's immediate supervisor. (Id. at ¶ 9). Johnson is responsible for “ensuring employee performance” in the department. (Id. at ¶ 14). Chacon also reported to Karl Scottron, the department head. (Id. at ¶ 9).

In February 2012, Chacon started to receive e-mails from Johnson criticizing her for not meeting her quota of answered telephone calls. (Id. ). She apparently received a verbal warning. (Id. ¶ 19). Chacon requested and was granted a meeting with Johnson and Scottron to discuss the criticisms. (Id. at ¶ 10). According to the complaint, at the meeting Scottron acknowledged that there was an ongoing problem with the computer system that tracked employee telephone activity and suggested that Ms. Johnson contact the information technology department within the hospital. (Id. ). Again according to the complaint, the IT department confirmed the problem and Ms. Johnson acknowledged it. (Id. ).

At Chacon's request, she again met with Johnson and Scottron in the spring of 2012. (Id. at ¶ 11). Chacon requested the meeting to address Johnson's continued criticisms of her performance. (Id. ). During the meeting, Johnson allegedly accused plaintiff of using her cell phone during work hours. Scottron allegedly asked Johnson if she had witnessed Chacon using her cell phone, and Johnson responded that she had not. (Id. ).

According to the complaint, at that same meeting, Chacon told Johnson that several employees regularly spent time at work socializing, using the Internet, and making personal telephone calls while patients waited on hold. (Id. at ¶ 12). She further informed her that patients frequently called back upset that they had been placed on hold without receiving assistance. (Id. ). She also allegedly reported that Johnson knowingly allowed certain employees to misrepresent their arrival time on the daily sign-in sheet and that she knowingly allowed several employees to “steal time” by leaving the office through the back door during work hours. (Id. at ¶ 13). According to the complaint, in response to those allegations, Johnson became “visibly angry” and stated, “You don't know whether I gave them permission to leave. You don't need to know. They ask permission of me, not you.” (Id. at ¶ 14).

According to the complaint, in April 2012, Johnson “accused plaintiff of not calling in and not showing up for work,” even though Chacon had sent an e-mail stating that she would be absent for medical reasons. (Id. at ¶ 16). Johnson apparently gave Chacon a warning for missing work without having provided an excuse. (Id. ).¹ Chacon's doctor then sent Johnson a faxed verification that Chacon had been under her care at the time in question, and Johnson retracted the warning. (Id. ).

On June 8, 2012, Johnson issued Chacon a written warning for “failure to meet standard performance requirements such as answering patient telephone calls on the schedule days as assigned.” (Id. at ¶ 17). The written warning included an indication that Chacon had been verbally warned in June 2011. (Id. at ¶ 18).² It also referred to the verbal warning plaintiff received in February 2012 for failing to answer a sufficient number of patient calls, but it did not state that (according to the complaint) the telephone system had not been functioning properly. (Id. at ¶ 19).

On August 23, 2012, Chacon received a performance appraisal that rated her as “minimally effective in all areas.” (Id. at ¶ 20).

In September 2012, Chacon received a written warning (apparently from Johnson) for allegedly not working on certain accounts. (Id. at ¶ 21). According to the complaint, Scottron asked Johnson if she could prove that allegation, and Johnson responded that she could not. After Chacon showed Johnson that the accounts listed in the written warning did not appear on her computer, the warning was removed from her personnel file at Scottron's direction. (Id. ). Johnson then allegedly cited Chacon for having demonstrated a deficiency in “different areas.” (Id. at ¶ 22). Chacon requested a copy of the September 2012 warning, but Johnson allegedly told her that it had been destroyed. (Id. ).

At an unspecified time, Chacon reported her issues to Michelle Boucher, the human resources manager. (Id. at ¶ 23). According to the complaint, Chacon provided Boucher with a doctor's note stating that she suffered from a medical condition that had been exacerbated by the work environment and requesting a transfer as a result. (Id. ). Boucher refused the request for a transfer, telling Chacon that she could not be transferred within six months of receiving a warning. (Id. at ¶ 24). She also told Chacon that she could not be transferred simply because she did not get along with her supervisor. (Id. ).

In September 2012, the hospital implemented a new system under which employees were required to sign in and out of their computers. (Id. at ¶ 25). According to the complaint, at some point thereafter, Johnson accused Chacon of failing to sign in or out as required. (Id. ). Chacon produced a computer printout showing that she was indeed signing in and out, but Johnson allegedly forced her to sign a form stating that she was not. (Id. ). Chacon attached the computer printout to the form. (Id. ). She also asked Johnson to check with the IT department to see if there was a problem with the system of signing in and out. (Id. at ¶ 26). The department allegedly sent out an e-mail two days later confirming that there was a problem with the system, but Johnson never retracted her warning. (Id. ).³

According to the complaint, Chacon was “denied time off during working hours to see her therapist,” and “[t]his continued for several months.” (Id. at ¶ 27). During the same period, Johnson once approached Chacon's desk at a time when she was on the telephone with a patient. (Id. at ¶ 28). According to the complaint, after Chacon motioned to Johnson to wait a moment, Johnson replied (in front of witnesses), “I'm tired of your f–––ing shit.” (Id. ). Chacon's coworkers later asked her why Johnson hated her so much. (Id. ).

The day after that incident, Johnson and Scottron asked Chacon to meet with them in a private office. (Id. at ¶ 29). They allegedly directed her to move her belongings to a cubicle used for storage across from the bathroom and the janitor's closet. (Id. ). When Chacon inquired as to why she was being moved, Johnson allegedly responded, “just move.” (Id. ).

According to the complaint, in late March 2013, shortly before Chacon was scheduled to leave for the day, Johnson assigned her approximately 100 accounts and told her that she should be working on them. (Id. at ¶ 30). Chacon told Johnson by e-mail that she did not possess the “security clearance” required to work on those accounts. (Id. at ¶ 31). Johnson allegedly replied that Chacon was still required to work on the accounts and then sent an e-mail to all managers stating that Chacon had failed to handle the accounts as she was supposed to prior to closing at the end of the month. (Id. ). According to the complaint, another manager confirmed that Chacon did not have the “codes” to work on the accounts in question. (Id. ).

Also in late March 2013, Johnson allegedly accused Chacon of mistreating a patient. (Id. at ¶ 32). According to the complaint, this accusation caused Chacon to suffer an anxiety attack and subsequently to seek medical treatment. (Id. ).

On March 29, 2013, Chacon e-mailed Johnson to request leave under the Family Medical Leave Act due to stress and anxiety. (Id. at ¶ 33). She also sent a form to the medical leave department. (Id. ). On April 1, 2013, Chacon sent a medical certification for FMLA leave to the benefits department. (Id. at ¶ 34).

On April 5, 2013, Chacon was terminated. (Id. at ¶ 35).

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed this action on August 5, 2014. The complaint contends that defendants (1) interfered with the exercise of her FMLA rights (Count 1) and (2) retaliated against her for exercising those rights (Count 2). It further contends that defendant BWH is liable under Massachusetts law for wrongfully terminating her in violation of public policy (Count 3) and that defendant Johnson is liable under Massachusetts law for intentionally interfering with her advantageous business relations (Count 4).⁴ Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which...