Mamouzette v. Jerome, Civil Action No. 2013-0117
| Decision Date | 19 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2013-0117 |
| Parties | MOISE MAMOUZETTE, Plaintiff, UNITED INDUSTRIAL WORKERS-SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, Intervenor-Plaintiff, v. MARC A. JEROME, Individually and in his official capacity as the Territorial Medical Director; RONALD ANDERS, Individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Governor Juan F. Luis Hospital; DARICE PLASKETT, Individually and in her official capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Health; THE VIRGIN ISLANDS BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS; THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; and DOES 1-5, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
Attorneys:
Yohana M. Manning, Esq.,
St. Croix, U.S.V.I.
For Plaintiff
John J. Merchant, Esq.,
St. Croix, U.S.V.I.
For Intervenor-Plaintiff
Joss N. Springette, Esq.,
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I
For Defendants
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff-Intervenor United Industrial Workers-Seafarers International Union's ("Union") "Petition to Confirm the Arbitrator's Award and Direct that Judgment Be Entered" on behalf of Plaintiff Moise Mamouzette, MD (Dkt. No. 48);1 Defendant Government of the Virgin Islands' ("Government") "Motion to Dismiss Petition to Confirm Arbitrator's Award and Direct that Judgment Be Entered and Incorporated Memorandum of Law" (Dkt. No. 88); Plaintiff Mamouzette's Reply thereto (Dkt. No. 89); and the Union's Amended Reply thereto (Dkt. No. 94-1). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Union and Plaintiff's Petition, and deny the Government's Motion.
Plaintiff Moise Mamouzette, MD ("Plaintiff" or "Dr. Mamouzette") was employed by Defendant Government of the Virgin Islands through the Virgin Islands Department of Health ("DOH"). (Dkt. No. 48 at 2). After practicing medicine in the Territory for four years, Plaintiff was suspended from his government employment in December of 2013, and ultimately terminated, allegedly due to issues with his certification to practice medicine. (Id.). In response, the Union filed a grievance challenging the Government's actions. (Id.). Plaintiff subsequently filed the instant action—in which the Union intervened—alleging constitutional and other violations in connection with his suspension and ultimate termination from employment with the Department of Health, the revocation of his Special Unrestricted License ("SUL") to practice medicine, and attendant circumstances. (Dkt. Nos. 1; 47). Together with the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motionfor a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") seeking to prohibit Defendants from terminating his employment and revoking his Special Unrestricted License to practice medicine. (Dkt. No. 1).2
In their Opposition to Plaintiff's request for a TRO, Defendants argued that: the Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") governs the appropriate procedure for resolution of Plaintiff's claims; Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; Plaintiff's due process claim is unavailing; the Virgin Islands Wrongful Discharge Act is not applicable to Plaintiff; Plaintiff will not suffer irreparable harm; and preliminary injunctive relief is not in the public interest and would cause greater harm to Defendants. (Dkt. No. 26). Of particular note here, Defendants argued that "Article X, Section 2, of Plaintiff's CBA states that the grievance procedure 'shall be the exclusive means of settlement of all grievances arising under this Agreement.'" (Id. at 5; see also Dkt. No. 32 at 2). Similarly, at the hearing on the TRO, counsel for Defendants stated that: the Arbitrator has the authority to decide the whole issue (January 14, 2014 Tr. at 154:3-18); the CBA "obviously speaks to the fact that any labor dispute or anything arising from [Dr. Mamouzette's] employment is going to go to arbitration" (id. at 153:4-7); "there is nothing in the CBA that carves out what the [A]rbitrator can't rule on" (id. at 153:22-23); the parties' dispute was based on breach of contract (id. at 155:13-17); and Plaintiff "has to exhaust his administrative remedies as provided for in the CBA through the grievance and arbitration route" (id. at 161:5-8).3
The Court agreed with Defendants, finding that "[t]he propriety of Plaintiff's termination . . . falls squarely into the category of disputes arising under the CBA for which the grievanceprocedure is the sole avenue for resolution." Mamouzette v. Jerome, 2014 WL 211402, at *4 (D.V.I. Jan. 19, 2014). Accordingly, the Court denied Plaintiff's request for a TRO, finding that Plaintiff was required to first exhaust his administrative remedies as set forth in the CBA. Id. at *6-7. In response to Plaintiff's contention that Defendants had repudiated the CBA, the Court stated that Defendants raised the arbitration agreement in their response to Plaintiff's Motion (Dkt. No. 26) and "indicated at the January 14, 2014 hearing that they fully intend to pursue the arbitration process as set forth in the CBA." Mamouzette, 2014 WL 211402, at *5; (January 14, 2014 Tr. at 163:10-18). The Court further stated that it would "hold Defendants to their representations." Mamouzette, 2014 WL 211402, at *5. The Court continued: "Given Defendants' filings and representations in this matter, there is no evidence of repudiation that warrants estoppel or negation of the required arbitration provision of the CBA." Id.
Plaintiff's employment was terminated on December 16, 2013 by letter from then Governor John P. de Jongh. (Dkt. No. 24-1). The letter states that "[t]he Department [of Health] recommended your termination based on your breach of the terms of the Letter of Agreement between yourself and the Government of the Virgin Islands, Department of Health." (Dkt. No. 24-1). As a result of the termination of Plaintiff's government employment, the Virgin Islands Board of Medical Examiners terminated Plaintiff's license effective January 10, 2014. Mamouzette, 2014 WL 211402, at *2.
It appears from the record that, after the parties proceeded to arbitration, the Government commenced a war of attrition. The Government did not conclude its part of the arbitrator selection process until more than three months after the Union had done so, and only did so after the Union contacted the Governor's office for intervention. (Dkt. No. 48-1 at 31). Despite the Union's repeated urgings for arbitration to take place as soon as possible, the parties struggled to arrive ata hearing date. (Id. at 4-7). Of the 49 dates offered by the Arbitrator over a 10-month period, none were agreeable to the Government, whereas the Union was available for all of them. (Id. at 37-38). The Government offered no alternative dates of its own. (Id.).
The Arbitrator issued Orders on June 30, 2014 and September 7, 2014. (Id. at 8-18). Among other things, the June 30, 2014 Order provisionally enjoined the DOH from terminating Dr. Mamouzette and the Board of Medical Examiners from revoking Dr. Mamouzette's Special Unrestricted License "pending the processing of [the] grievance." (Id.). The Order also set a hearing date for September 15 and 16, 2014, and afforded the parties the opportunity to submit closing briefs thereafter; or alternatively, provided the parties with the opportunity, by mutual consent, to agree to an expedited briefing schedule that would not include a hearing. (Id.).
The Government filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Arbitrator's June 30, 2014 Order, to which the Union submitted a response. (Id. at 14). The Arbitrator issued an Order on September 7, 2014 which, inter alia, stayed the June 30, 2014 Order's injunctive relief aspects. (Id.). The September 7, 2014 Order also outlined alternative courses of action for the parties going forward, including an option for resolution of the matter on the written record only, if the Government refused to schedule a hearing pursuant to the Order. (Id. at 17-18).
Following the September 7, 2014 Order, the Government stated that their key witness was unavailable for any of the offered dates, as the witness would be taking "indefinite medical leave," starting from the first offered hearing date. (Id. at 38). Based on this record, the Arbitrator concluded it was "clear that the Employer simply does not wish to concede to agreeing to a hearing date." (Id. at 45). The Arbitrator informed the parties via e-mail on September 28, 2014 that, in order to bring this matter to a timely resolution, he would resolve the grievance before him based on his "review of submitted, voluminous material [he had] received from the Parties in defense oftheir various procedural motions and responses." (Id. at 48). The Arbitrator also afforded the parties ten days to submit briefs "focusing on the substantive issues between the parties involving the Grievance." (Id.).
The Arbitrator issued his "Order Based on Party Briefing and Record" on October 27, 2014. (Id. at 19-47). In characterizing the issue before him, the Arbitrator concluded, "the matter simply boils down to what was Grievant's 'certification and/or qualification' status when DOH terminated him?" (Id. at 40) (emphasis in original). The Arbitrator found that a complaint regarding Dr. Mamouzette's treatment of a patient "was not part of Grievant's termination of employment letter from the DOH, nor his revocation of his SUL from the [Board of Medical Examiners]." (Id. at 42). He further found that in the absence of any indication of the outcome of the complaint, and in light of the Government's failure to amend Dr. Mamouzette's termination letter to include the complaint, it "can reasonably be concluded that this charge was unsubstantiated." (Id.).
Based on the record before him, the Arbitrator concluded that Dr. Mamouzette had been aware that his certification/qualification had lapsed at the time that he was terminated, and the Employer's decision to terminate him was reasonable at that time. (Id. at 44-46). However, the Arbitrator found that full just cause for termination was lacking due...
To continue reading
Request your trial