Fournier v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 02 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 18-10865-FDS |
| Citation | 498 F.Supp.3d 193 |
| Parties | Maria FOURNIER, Plaintiff, v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE TRIAL COURT, Lewis Spence, John Bello, and Jonathan Williams, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Benjamin Flam, Philip J. Gordon, Gordon Law Group, LLP, Boston, MA, for Plaintiff.
J. David Hampton, Nicole A. Eldredge, Office of the Attorney General Insurance & Financial Services, Boston, MA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is a lawsuit alleging retaliatory dismissal in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, and the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 185.
Plaintiff Maria Fournier was Director of Support Services at the Executive Office of the Trial Court in Massachusetts. In that role, she oversaw various services within the Trial Court system, including law libraries, court transcription, and the Office of Court Interpreter Services.
In January 2017, an outside consultant was hired to assess the performance of the Office of Court Interpreter Services. The consultant undertook that review, in large part, by interviewing staff and judges. He presented his findings to management on March 17, 2017.
Those findings were extremely critical of Fournier and noted a near-universal dissatisfaction with her interpersonal and management skills. Among other things, she was criticized for her "inability to delegate," "poor communication with staff & field," and "highly reactive & defensive behavior." Interviewees were quoted as saying things such as "[s]he [has] turned in[to] a monster" and "resorts to bullying tactics and manipulation"; "[t]here is no rhyme or reason to anything she does"; and "[s]he lies." Various individuals referred to her as "bullish," "hostile," "inconsistent," and "overwhelmed." The consultant recommended that management either "relaunch" her to improve her performance or remove her from her position.
That presentation was made on Friday, March 17. The next day, Fournier's supervisor, Lewis Spence, left for vacation.
On March 30, Fournier heard a report at a staff meeting that an interpreter had made a discriminatory remark. That day, she reported the remark to the Director of Human Resources.
The next day, March 31, Fournier met with Spence, who by then had returned from his vacation. Spence discussed her performance and behavior issues, as reported by the consultant, and discussed whether she should be terminated, demoted, or transferred. Fournier said that she would consider the options and get back to him. She did not, however, provide a substantive response to Spence at any point over the next two weeks.
Two weeks later, on April 14, Spence placed Fournier on administrative leave. The next day, he retired.
Eventually, on August 15, 2017—after a hearing and an internal investigation—Fournier was terminated. The termination decision was made by Jonathan Williams, Spence's successor, who had started his position in May 2017.
The amended complaint asserts claims for retaliation in violation of Title VII and the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act. The retaliation case is premised heavily on what Fournier says is the close proximity between her protected activity on March 30 and the adverse employment event, which she says occurred during the meeting with Spence on March 31. According to her, that close proximity, together with the other evidence, is sufficient to infer a strong causal relationship and establish that defendants’ stated justification for her termination was pretextual.
The retaliation case is problematic in multiple respects, beginning with the consultant's findings concerning her workplace performance. That performance, as reported, was not merely unsatisfactory or subpar; co-workers described her in scathingly critical terms. It is of course entirely possible that the criticisms were inaccurate or unfair. But there is overwhelming evidence that management had a legitimate, non-retaliatory basis for her discharge.
Furthermore, the temporal proximity on which Fournier relies is not nearly as close as she suggests. She was not, in fact, terminated the day after her protected activity, or indeed at any time over the ensuing four and one-half months. She was terminated on August 15, and then only after a hearing and an internal investigation into the retaliation issue. Nor was she terminated by the person with whom she met on March 31 (Spence), but by a different person altogether (Williams). And the circumstances of the protected activity also undercut an inference of retaliation. Fournier herself did not hear the alleged discriminatory remark; she heard about it second-hand at a staff meeting. She (commendably) passed along what she had heard to senior management. But so did another person who was present at the meeting. That person suffered no retaliation, and indeed was subsequently promoted.
Fournier attempts to buttress her case with other claims, including the inflammatory and unsupported claim that Spence is an "admitted" racist. She also claims that she was subject to disparate treatment compared to other employees and that the key decisionmakers engaged in various forms of inappropriate conduct, including lying in their depositions, providing shifting explanations for her termination, and failing to follow established procedures. Many of those claims are based on gross distortions of the evidentiary record, and others are immaterial. In the end, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and drawing reasonable inferences in her favor, there is insufficient evidence to establish that the stated reason for her termination—unacceptable performance and behavior—was pretextual.
To be clear, the issue is not whether the decision to terminate plaintiff was wise or unwise, or even whether it was fair or unfair: it is whether she suffered retaliation for engaging in protected activity. Because she has not produced sufficient evidence to support that claim, and for the following reasons, summary judgment in favor of defendants will be granted.
The following facts are as set forth in the record and are undisputed except as noted.
Maria Fournier is a resident of Burlington, Massachusetts. (Fournier Dep. at 6). In 2013, she was hired to be the Director of Support Services at the Executive Office of the Trial Court (the "Executive Office"). (Spence Aff. ¶ 2). That office oversees the Massachusetts Trial Court System. (Williams Aff. ¶ 1). The Chief Justice of the Trial Court oversees the Executive Office's judicial operations, and the Court Administrator oversees its administrative operations. (Id. ¶ 2). The latter position was created in 2012. (Id. ¶ 3).
Lewis Spence served as the first Court Administrator and worked in that role from 2012 until April 14, 2017. (Spence Aff. ¶¶ 1, 30). John Bello was Acting Associate Court Administrator between April 14 and May 1, 2017. (Bello Aff. ¶ 12; Williams Aff. ¶ 5). Jonathan Williams became the Court Administrator on May 1, 2017. (Williams Aff. ¶ 5).
In 2013, Spence hired Fournier to be the Director of Support Services for the Executive Office. (Spence Aff. ¶ 2). In that role, Fournier oversaw services that support the Trial Court's functions, including law libraries, court transcription, and the Office of Court Interpreter Services ("OCIS"). (Id. ¶¶ 3-4).
OCIS manages the provision of interpreters for the Trial Court by more than 150 independent vendors. (Def. Ex. 3, at 1). It provides services for more than 90,000 court events (principally hearings and trials) each year. (Id. ). Interpretation services are provided in several languages (principally Spanish, but also Portuguese, Haitian Creole, Russian, Arabic, and many others) at dozens of court facilities. (Def. Ex. 6, at 15). OCIS fulfills requests for interpreters, manages interpreters’ schedules, develops the pool of interpreters, ensures the quality of interpretation services, and pays interpreters. (Id. at 8).
According to Spence, "[b]oth before and during Fournier's tenure, OCIS was the frequent subject of criticism by judges, clerks, and members of the public, who complained that services were not provided in a timely or efficient manner." (Spence Aff. ¶ 5). It is undisputed that Fournier faced significant challenges attempting to improve the performance of OCIS.
Fournier's first performance review was conducted in 2015. (Pl. Ex. B). Spence gave her a generally positive review. (Id. ). Among other things, he wrote that she "has attacked the manifold challenges of support services with intelligence and courage," that "she has the fortitude to take hard actions with staff when that is necessary," and that "Support Services is greatly improved as a result of her leadership." (Id. at 5, 6, 10). He did, however, criticize her ability to "manage for the long term," and noted that "she can unwittingly be a bit abrupt with people" and that she "needs to hone her communication skills." (Id. at 5-6).
In Fournier's 2016 performance review, Spence again made positive comments. (Pl. Ex. C). He stated that she "carries out all the responsibilities of her position," that she "is extremely conscientious, and manages her broad portfolio with comprehensive attention to all areas," and that she "has had a challenging year, but is rising to meet the challenge." (Id. at 3, 5). He again, however, criticized certain aspects of her performance. For example, he wrote that she "is precise, courageous, innovative and focused on efficiency, but is sometimes rigid in her response to criticism." (Id. at 5). He also wrote that "she works extremely well with other staff when she feels respected," but "[w]hen she feels that she is not respected, she has difficulty with colleagues"; that "her challenge is to...
To continue reading
Request your trial