Mansfield v. Pfaff

• Decision Date: 01 September 2015
• Docket Number: CASE NO. C14-0948JLR
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
• Parties: PAMELA MANSFIELD, Plaintiff, v. DAWN JONES PFAFF, et al., Defendants.

PAMELA MANSFIELD, Plaintiff, v. DAWN JONES PFAFF, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. C14-0948JLR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

September 1, 2015

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I.INTRODUCTION

Before the court are DefendantsDr. Jerry Palmer and Mara Stevens'¹motion for summary judgment(Mot. (Dkt. # 113-1)), PlaintiffPamela Mansfield's opposition thereto (Resp. (Dkt. # 119-1)), and Defendants' reply memorandum (Reply (Dkt. # 120)).This is a First Amendment retaliation case.Ms. Mansfield claims that Defendantsterminated her employment as a research nurse with the University of Washington ("UW") in retaliation for her having reported alleged improprieties in the work of Dr. Palmer's research team.(See3d Am. Compl.(Dkt. # 61)¶¶ 12, 33-35; Resp. at 3-14.)She asserts that this reporting constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment.(See3d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 33-35;Resp. at 15-17.)Defendants move for summary judgment on three principal bases: (1) Ms. Mansfield's speech was not protected, (2) Ms. Mansfield's speech was not a substantial or motivating factor in the decision to terminate her employment, and (3) UW would have terminated Ms. Mansfield's employment even absent her allegedly protected speech.(SeeMot.at 2, 5-6.)The court has considered the submissions of the parties, the balance of the record, and the relevant law.Being fully advised,²the court GRANTS Defendants' motion for summary judgment and DISMISSES this case WITH PREJUDICE.

II.BACKGROUND³

Ms. Mansfield is a registered nurse who began working for UW in 1994.(See3d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 10;Palmer Decl. (Dkt. # 106)¶ 4.)In 2007, she received an appointment as a research nurse on a UW diabetes study headed by Dr. Palmer ("the study").(See3d Am. Compl. ¶ 10;PalmerDecl. ¶¶ 2, 4.)In addition to Ms. Mansfieldand Dr. Palmer, the research team included an administrative assistant and research coordinator named Dawn Jones-Pfaff and several other individuals.(See3d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 6, 10;PalmerDecl. ¶¶ 8-9;Jones-Pfaff Decl. (Dkt. # 28)¶¶ 1-3.)The primary location of the team's work was the Veterans Administration ("VA") campus in Seattle's Beacon Hill neighborhood.(See3d Am. Compl. ¶ 10;Brooks-Worrell Decl. (Dkt. # 31)¶¶ 3-4;PalmerDecl. ¶¶ 2, 4;Palmer Decl. ¶ 4, at 11-12("Job Description")at 1.)As such, Ms. Mansfield required a without-compensation ("WOC") appointment with the VA in order to perform her job duties.(SeeBrooks-WorrellDecl. ¶¶ 3-4;PalmerDecl. ¶ 3.)

Over time, certain relationships within the team soured, particularly those between Ms. Mansfield and both Ms. Jones-Pfaff and Dr. Palmer.This conflict included allegations regarding Ms. Mansfield's job performance and, as most relevant here, allegations by Ms. Mansfield regarding Ms. Jones-Pfaff and alleged improprieties in the Palmer team's research practices.(See, e.g., 3d Am. Compl. ¶ 12;Mansfield Decl. (Dkt. # 117-10) 1C-1E;Brown Decl. (Dkt. # 110)¶¶ 6, 9;PalmerDecl. ¶¶ 7-13, 16-24.)

Specifically, in late 2010, Ms. Mansfield began to exhibit concern regarding some of the team's research practices that she viewed as unsafe, unethical, and in violation of Institutional Review Board("IRB") protocols for the study (hereinafter "IRB violations").(SeeResp.at 2;MansfieldDecl. ¶¶ 1C-1D; Jacobson Decl. (Dkt. # 117-11) App'x 32 ("2d Reports"), App'x 48 ("1st Report").)Ms. Mansfield reported several such issues to UW's Human Subjects Division("HSD"), a division that helps to oversee UWresearch projects involving human subjects.⁴(See 1st Report; 2d Reportsat 3-4;Moe Decl. (Dkt. # 111)¶¶ 2-4;see alsoBrown Decl. (Dkt. # 110)¶¶ 2-3.)In November 2010, Ms. Mansfield reported that Ms. Jones-Pfaff and another team member had violated informed consent and subject recruitment protocols.(See1st Reportat 1-2;see also2d Reportat 1-2;BrownDecl. ¶ 6.)Later, in December 2010, Ms. Mansfield reported that the team was using an unsafe needle size (see2d Reportsat 3;BrownDecl. ¶ 6, at 6-7), and in January 2011, she reported that the team was using an unsafe variety of syringe and allowing unlicensed personnel (Ms. Jones-Pfaff) to put heparin in a syringe and then use the syringe to draw blood (see2d Reportsat 4).In April 2011, she also reported that Ms. Jones-Pfaff attempted to admit a child for an examination at an adults-only facility.(SeeBrownDecl. ¶ 9;see also2d Reportsat 5.)

In her deposition testimony, Ms. Mansfield explains that her job at UW required her to report IRB violations to HSD:

Q: [W]as one of your job duties to ensure compliance with applicable protocols?

A: Yes, the mission of a [UW] Health and Human Services registered nurse . . . are those duties.

Q: Including IRB protocols.Part of your job was to ensure compliance with those?

A: Correct.

Q: Do you believe that you had a duty to report any IRB protocol violations?

A: Yes.

Q: And that was part of your job responsibilities?

A: Correct.

. . .

Q: So if you weren't satisfied with the response you received by a supervisor, was it your obligation to report that to, for example, [HSD]?

A: My duties as a registered nurse are patient safety, patient privacy, validity of study outcome, and the ethical treatment.So, yes, if I report it to my direct supervisor -- it was also my duty as an employee of [UW] to make sure that they're aware . . . .

Q: So part of your job, from your perspective, was to report IRB protocol violations to [HSD]?

A: My chain of command was to report it to the principal investigator, and then if I had questions, the IRB is a resource for the University and you could contact them for questions as well.So, yes, in adherence to policies, I used those departments.

Q: Was one of your responsibilities?

A: Yes, one of my responsibilities.

(SeeMansfieldDep. at 44:14-46:4;see also id. at 116:11-16, 167:12-14, 167:20-24.)Ms. Mansfield states that her status as a registered nurse also obligated her to report to HSD.

(Seeid. at 167:11-168:4, 418:10-17.)She notes, however, that her written job description did not mention a reporting obligation.⁵(Seeid. 418:1-10;MansfieldDecl. ¶ 1.)The Director of HSD, Karen Moe, and HSD's Assistant Director for Quality and Compliance, Wendy Brown, both attest that all UW employees involved in human subject research are required to report "any ethical concern, non-compliance, or other problem" to their supervisor, and if unsatisfied with the supervisor's response, to HSD or another appropriate UW office.(MoeDecl. ¶¶ 2, 5;BrownDecl. ¶¶ 2, 4;see alsoBerntsen Decl. (Dkt. # 108)¶ 12, at 89-98("Devine Dep.")at 37:2-6.)

Ms. Mansfield followed up on her reports to HSD with reports to the Washington State Auditor's Office("the Auditor").(SeeMansfieldDecl. ¶ 1F.)She filed a brief online report with the Auditor on February 5, 2011(seeid.;Jacobson Decl. App'x 46 ("1st Auditor Report")), and then submitted a more detailed report on April 25, 2011(seeMansfieldDecl. ¶ 1F; Jacobson Decl. App'x 31 ("2d Auditor Report")).These reports cover the allegations in Ms. Mansfield's HSD reports.(Compare 1st Report and 2d Reports with 1st Auditor Report and 2d Auditor Report.)

In the meantime, the conflict between Ms. Mansfield and Ms. Jones-Pfaff came to a head.On March 9, 2011, Ms. Mansfield reported to the VA that Ms. Jones-Pfaff snuck up behind her and slammed her head into a desk.(See3d Am. Compl. ¶ 19.)The VA investigated the incident and, after concluding that no assault occurred, revoked Ms. Mansfield's access to its facilities.(Seeid.¶ 20;Gladson Decl. (Dkt. # 69); Rose Decl. (Dkt. # 70); Thomas Decl. (Dkt. # 71);BerntsenDecl. ¶ 10, at 72-76("Keelin Report").)Shortly thereafter, UW administrators recommended that human resources ("HR") terminate Ms. Mansfield's employment on the basis that she could not perform her duties without access to the VA facilities.(SeeStevensDecl. ¶¶ 2-4, at 6-13;DevineDep. at 38:24-39:2).)

Ms. Stevens, a HR manager for UW School of Medicine, affirmed the recommendation to terminate Ms. Mansfield's employment.(SeeStevensDecl. ¶¶ 2-4, 8-9, at 22; Resp. at 13-14.)Before doing so, however, Ms. Stevens set up a meeting with Ms. Mansfield, the sole purpose of which was to allow Ms. Mansfield to address the asserted reason for the termination recommendation—lack of access to VA facilities.(SeeStevensDecl. ¶¶ 4-6, at 6-18; Resp. at 13.)Roughly forty-five minutes before that meeting was to begin, Ms. Mansfield's counsel sent an email to Ms. Stevens in which he argued that Ms. Mansfield was the victim of a retaliatory scheme by her coworkers.(Seeid.¶ 7, at 19-21("Jacobson Email").)⁶Counsel's email was the first time Ms. Stevenshad heard about Ms. Mansfield's reports of IRB violations.(StevensDecl. ¶ 7.)Ms. Stevens states that counsel's email and its attachments were not relevant to her task at the time because they did not pertain to whether Ms. Mansfield could restore her access to VA facilities.(Seeid.¶ 8.)Instead, because Ms. Mansfield provided no new information on that subject, Ms. Stevens terminated Ms. Mansfield's employment for lack of access to VA facilities.(Seeid.¶¶ 8-9, at 22.)

On March 10, 2013, Ms. Mansfield filed this lawsuit in King County Superior Court.(State Ct. Rec. (Dkt. # 2-1)at 5.)Although her original complaint named only Ms. Jones-Pfaff (seeid. at 5, 7), Ms. Mansfield soon amended her complaint to include the rest of the research team, Ms. Stevens, UW, and others (seeid. at 17-27).The case was removed to this court on June 27, 2014.(Not. of Rem.(Dkt. # 1).)Since that time, court orders and voluntary dismissals have winnowed the defendants down to two—Dr. Palmer and Ms. Stevens—against whom Ms. Mansfield asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation.(See Dkt. ## 11, 46, 56, 60, 91, 103;3d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 33-35.)Ms. Mansfield alleges that Dr. Palmer influenced...