Martinez v. New England Medical Center Hospitals, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 01-12349-JLT.,CIV.A. 01-12349-JLT. |
| Citation | 307 F.Supp.2d 257 |
| Parties | Teresa MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. NEW ENGLAND MEDICAL CENTER HOSPITALS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Paul F. Wood, Law Office of Paul F. Wood PC, Boston, MA, for Teresa Martinez, Plaintiff.
Ronald M. Jacobs, Matthew P. Poppel, Poppel & Associates, Boston, MA, for New England Medical Center, Inc., Defendant.
Plaintiff Teresa Martinez ("Martinez") initiated this action against Defendant New England Medical Center Hospitals, Inc. ("NEMCH"), alleging violations of federal and state law for retaliatory discharge, termination in violation of public policy, invasion of privacy, inten4ional interference, and defamation.
Defendant's motion for summary judgment is now before this court.
NEMCH established an International Patient Center ("IPC") in or around 1996.1 The IPC was designed to attract "international patients capable of paying full price for medical care."2 Martinez began working as an employee in the IPC in or around August, 1997.3 Her job responsibilities included "financial and registration coordination ... for international patients."4 Part of Martinez's job was "making sure the patients she [was] coordinating ... [were] financially able to pay."5
According to NEMCH's written policies, the regular order of ensuring payment is to first provide an initial estimate to the patient, which the patient must pay for up front.6 The actual charges are then delineated on an invoice after the services have been provided. IPC coordinators are authorized to provide up to a twenty-percent discount "from the total gross charges without specific approval from [NEMCH's Chief Financial Officer (`CFO')]."7
Martinez understood NEMCH's policy required the IPC "to obtain 50% or 100% of the estimated cost on a case-by-case basis."8 And, she knew that "if there were `less than 80% in the door prior to the procedure[,]' she would have to go see the CFO of the Hospital."9 Martinez also recognized that any discount in excess of twenty percent had to be approved by the CFO.10 NEMCH claims that Martinez was terminated as a result of her failure to abide by these regulations.
In the spring of 2001, Martinez was acting as the patient liaison for an Ecuadoran patient in need of a bone-marrow transplant.11 The procedure was estimated to cost $330,000.12 Martinez faxed that estimate to either the patient or the patient's cousin.13
The patient was scheduled to start chemotherapy on April 23, 2001, but by April 11, 2001, Martinez had received only a $5,000 deposit for the treatment14. When asked by the bone marrow transplant coordinator if the patient was "all set" for the procedure, Martinez answered, "[i]f the question is if she is all set with the cost of the estimate[, the answer] is no."15 Martinez, however, did not notify her supervisor, Wendy Leong-Lum ("Leong-Lum"), or NEMCH's CFO about the situation.16
A week before the patient was to undergo treatment, her family threatened to go to the press and say that she was denied care because she was unable to pay.17 NEMCH's Chief Operating Officer ("COO"), Dr. Miller (the physician who was to perform the transplant) and the hospital's public affairs person went to see Martinez to find out the facts surrounding this patient. Martinez relayed to them the following: The patient, or her cousin, told Martinez that she had collected $25,000, "had somebody who was going to give $50,000" and "had undertaken fundraising initiatives."18 Martinez responded that the patient "would have to provide [her] with the $75,000, a letter of intent of fundraising and that Martinez would take it from there."19 The patient, or the cousin, then inquired about the possibility of a greater discount, to which Martinez answered that "only if the doctor offers something in addition to [the] 20%[,] will the Hospital consider [it,] ... and ... it[']s up to you if you want to speak to the physician."20 Martinez then met with the patient, or her family, and discussed the possibility of her "approaching the physician directly about waiving his fees."21 At some point during these discussions, the patient's cousin said to Martinez, "I mean, who has $330,000 to give."22
After Dr. Miller learned what had happened, he was "outraged" because the hospital could not "stop treatment now."23 Leong-Lum later told Martinez that NEMCH's management was extremely upset about the situation.24 On April 23, 2001, Leong-Lum made written notes about her communications concerning the incident for her file.25 In addition, NEMCH's Vice President of General Services, James Carmody ("Carmody"), sent an email to the Chief Executive Officer and the COO explaining that:
Theresa was not authorized to advise the patient as she did. The fact that she did this is very concerning. This is not the first time she has acted outside of her authority and she (in the past) has been at least verbally reprimanded. I think this is particularly egregious and may require HR intervention including the consideration of termination.26
In addition to Martinez's failure to abide by company policy, NEMCH also asserts that Martinez was fired for repeated tardiness. On June 29, 2000, Martinez had been placed on a Corrective Action Plan ("CAP") to address her tardiness issues.27 She was placed on another CAP on August 7, 2000. The August CAP noted that since the June CAP, Martinez had "come in at least 10 minutes late on several occasions,"28 and that Martinez's attendance would be carefully monitored for the next six months.29 To help Martinez make it to work on time, NEMCH also adjusted her daily start time from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.30
Martinez's attendance did not improve, despite the adjustment in her start time. On January 24, 2001, Martinez was suspended without pay for one day as a result of her continued tardiness.31 Two days later she was given a final CAP, which listed all of the times since her August CAP that she had been late to work and included a Performance Improvement Plan that stated, "[a]ny further tardiness in excess of 3 occurrences within the Performance Improvement time frame of 3 months will result in immediate termination."32
Leong-Lum sent an email to Susan Perl on April 24, 2001, which noted that Martinez's anniversary from her last CAP would be on April 25, 2001 and that Martinez had been tardy on four separate occasions during that probationary period.33 Leong-Lum also mentioned that she would be meeting with Carmody that afternoon and would discuss the situation with him.34
Martinez was fired from her position at NEMCH on April 26, 2001.35 The written notice of her termination cites both her violation of IPC policy and her excessive tardiness as reasons for her dismissal.36
Martinez claims that those reasons are merely pretextual. Both in her complaint and in a subsequent affidavit, Martinez alleges that she made "numerous complaints to NEMCH management concerning discrimination against international patients at NEMCH."37 She also alleges that she made "numerous complaints to NEMC[H] supervisory/managerial employees ... that [she] was being subject to unequal treatment ... because [she] was a single woman with [a] child."38 Neither document recites specific details about any of these alleged complaints. In her deposition, moreover, Martinez admits that the most recent conversation she remembers having in which she complained about discrimination against certain international patients was in 2000.39 And, Martinez cannot recall the last time she complained to a supervisor that she was being treated unequally due to being a single mother, though she thinks it was sometime in 2001.40
A wholly separate incident is the basis for several of Martinez's claims. A few months after her termination, Martinez and two of her friends initiated a phone call to Leong-Lum.41 One of Martinez's friends posed as a representative of fictitious technology company interested in hiring Martinez, while Martinez and her other friend secretly listened to the call.42 Leong-Lum expressed surprise that Martinez was applying for a new job because she thought that Martinez was moving out of state.43
When asked why Martinez had been terminated, Leong-Lum answered that Martinez had given an unauthorized discount to a patient.44 She also noted that Martinez 7as frequently absent because she had a daughter who was constantly sick.45 Additionally, Leong-Lum volunteered that Martinez did a great job, was very creative, and was a great person and friend.46
NEMCH has filed a motion for summary judgment. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."47 Rule 56 mandates summary judgment "after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial."48
The 49 The party opposing summary judgment must produce specific evidence of a material factual dispute. The First Circuit has noted that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spencer v. Roche
...facts of highly personal or intimate nature, but also that it had no legitimate reason for doing so.” Martinez v. New England Med. Ctr. Hosps., Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 257, 267 (D.Mass.2004) (citing Schlesinger v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 409 Mass. 514, 518, 567 N.E.2d 912 (......
-
Carmack v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., Civil Action No. 03-12488-PBS.
...facts of highly personal or intimate nature, but also that it had no legitimate reason for doing so." Martinez v. N.E. Med. Ctr. Hosps., Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 257, 267 (D.Mass.2004). Therefore, "[i]n determining whether there is a violation of § 1B [in the employment context], it is necessary......
-
Barrows v. Wareham Fire Dist.
...Inc. v. Computerworld, Inc., 396 Mass. 760, 775–776, 489 N.E.2d 185 (1986); invasion of privacy, Martinez v. New England Med. Center Hosps., Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 257, 267 (D.Mass.2004); interference with advantageous relations, Blackstone v. Cashman, 448 Mass. 255, 260, 860 N.E.2d 7 (2007); ......
-
Cornwell v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.
...material by one without a privilege to do so which ridicules or treats the plaintiff with contempt.'" Martinez v. New Eng. Med. Ctr. Hosps., Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 257, 268 (D.Mass.2004) (quoting Correllas v. Viveiros, 410 Mass. 314, 319, 572 N.E.2d 7, 10 (1991)). "The elements of a defamation......