Racz v. Mayo Clinic

• Decision Date: 07 February 2023
• Docket Number: 21-cv-1132 (ECT/JFD)
• Parties: Jennifer M. Racz, M.D., Plaintiff, v. Mayo Clinic, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

1

Jennifer M. Racz, M.D., Plaintiff, v. Mayo Clinic, Defendant.

No. 21-cv-1132 (ECT/JFD)

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

February 7, 2023

Andrew P. Muller of Muller, Muller and Associates PLLC; and Joseph A. Larson of Joseph A. Larson Law Firm PLLC, for Plaintiff Jennifer M. Racz, M.D.

George R. Wood, Emily A. McNee, and Charles J. Urena of Littler Mendelson, PC, for Defendant Mayo Clinic.

OPINION AND ORDER

Eric C. Tostrud United States District Court

Plaintiff Jennifer Racz is a surgeon who was employed by Defendant Mayo Clinic in a three-year Senior Associate Consultant appointment. Racz became pregnant during this appointment and took medical and maternity leave. Shortly after returning from leave, Racz was notified that Mayo would not be promoting her to Consultant, thus ending her employment at Mayo at the end of her term. In this case, Racz alleges that Mayo engaged in discrimination and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) retaliation under Title VII and the Minnesota Parenting Leave Act (“MPLA”), and reprisal under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”).

Mayo seeks summary judgment. Mayo's motion will be denied because (1) there is direct evidence that Mayo refused to promote Racz due to her exercise of FMLA and MPLA rights; and (2) Racz has identified evidence of pretext sufficient to demonstrate that a reason prohibited under the FMLA, Title VII, and the MHRA likely motivated Mayo's decision not to promote her.

I^[1]

Mayo hired Racz as a Senior Associate Consultant in August 2016. Mayo began recruiting and hiring a breast/melanoma surgeon in 2014. ECF No. 124 at 5. The breast/melanoma section was seeking a surgeon with experience with oncoplastic surgery, a type of breast surgery that removes breast cancer with a lumpectomy (rather than a mastectomy) while minimizing cosmetic detriment to the breast. Id. at 5-6. Racz applied for this position around 2014 or 2015 and went through a series of interviews. Id. at 5; ECF No 127-1 at 7. Although Mayo offered Racz the position in 2015 ECF No. 128-6 at 2, her appointment was delayed until August 2016, ECF No. 127-1 at 8. Mayo ultimately employed Racz as a Senior Associate Consultant in Mayo's breast/melanoma section. ECF No. 124 at 4-6.

The organizational structure of Mayo's breast/melanoma surgery section. Mayo's breast/melanoma section consisted of five surgeons in 2016: Dr. Amy Degnim (head of the section), Dr. James Jakub, Dr. Tina Hieken, Dr. Judy Boughey and Dr. David Farley. Id. at 1-2; ECF No. 153-12 at 4. The breast/melanoma section was part of a larger division within Mayo's Department of Surgery known as the Breast, Endocrine, Metabolic, and GI Surgery (“BEMGI”) Division. ECF No. 124 at 1-2. The BEMGI Division was chaired by Jakub during Racz's appointment. ECF No. 124 at 1. Dr. Heidi Nelson chaired the overall Department of Surgery during most of Racz's appointment, with Dr. Geoffrey Thompson taking over as interim chair in June 2019, for the last six months of Racz's time at Mayo. Id. at 2; ECF No. 127-1 at 56, 59. Nelson retired on June 15, 2019. ECF No. 127-1 at 56.

Mayo's hiring and promotion process. Mayo initially hires a new physician as a Senior Associate Consultant. ECF No. 124 at 2. A Senior Associate Consultant appointment is typically three years long and provides Mayo with an opportunity to evaluate the physician's performance and demeanor, while determining whether to promote the physician to a Consultant. Id. Mayo does not hire physicians directly as Consultants. Id. Mayo's written promotion policy directs each department to develop its own written promotion process. ECF No. 127-1 at 28. The Surgery Department developed a process which includes a list of general criteria to be considered and a basic timetable leading up to a promotion decision. Id. at 21. The timetable provides that at 30 months an assessment meeting will take place, and that “[p]rior to 36 months” the BEMGI Division Chair-at the time, Jakub-will “[m]eet with division members to discuss and reach consensus to support the decision to promote to Consultant, extend the SAC appointment, or terminate the appointment.” Id.; ECF No. 152-1 at 1; ECF No. 124 at 2-3.

Racz experienced challenges and received some negative feedback from her leadership throughout 2017. On March 29, 2017, Jakub met with Racz to discuss her performance. ECF No. 124 at 7. As documented in a letter he provided to Racz, Jakub noted four areas of concern: “an insufficient level of cross-coverage by her, lower than expected operative volumes, a lack of confidence, and a poor working relationship with another established breast/melanoma surgeon, Dr. Tina Hieken.” Id.; ECF No. 125-2 at 2-3. On May 11, 2017, Racz received a review in which she was rated a 3.54 out of 5 by residents and fellows she worked with-the lowest rating of any physician for that period in the division. ECF No. 124 at 7; ECF No. 128-3 at 2-3. Then, on November 29, 2017, Jakub met with Racz again to discuss her failure to meet her clinical productivity target. ECF No. 127-1 at 18. Jakub summarized that meeting in an email sent the same day:

A 1.0 breast surgical clinical FTE has a target of 360 cases a year or 30 cases a month. For 2017 we budgeted you 85% of the target and to date your [sic] approximately 20% below that 85% target. The clinical metrics including planned cases and actual cases, per breast and melanoma surgeon, were transparently shared with you. Your operative yield is 63% compared to an average of approximately 80% for the breast/melanoma Surgical Practice.

ECF No. 125-4 at 2. Along with noting that Racz was failing to meet her already reduced goal, Jakub told her in this same email that “2017 was a challenging year for you for a number of reasons[,]” that he “would like to hit the reset button as we look forward to 2018[,]” and that “[i]t is understood that a surgeon in their 1st 1-2 years of practice will not be able to meet the metrics of surgeons who are much more tenured.” Id. Jakub noted that Racz's “2018 metrics were bench marked lower than a 1.0 F TEE clinical breast surgeon and we all agreed are very realistic.” Id. In a post-meeting email to Nelson and Guidinger, Jakub stated that after going over the metrics with Racz, they were on the “same page” and that he was far more confident that she could be a good long term fit for their program. ECF No. 152-1 at 4. Nelson replied,

Glad to be able to put the past behind us and start fresh. Must have clarity about expectations and must have fulfillment of those expectations. Never fun to have the a [sic] work relationship not work out long term so hopeful it will.

Id. Racz's first nipple-sparing mastectomy. “Surgeons in the breast/melanoma section are required to learn and become proficient at performing nipple-sparing mastectomies.” ECF No. 124 at 4. Racz performed her first nipple-sparing mastectomy in December 2017, 16 months after the start of her appointment. Id. at 8.

Racz falsely blamed her secretary for booking a non-refundable hotel room in Dubai. In January 2018, Racz emailed her secretary to book a room in Dubai “ASAP” for a medical conference that was occurring in February 2018. ECF No. 121 at 1-2. Her secretary had previously contacted her about booking for the trip in July 2017. Id. at 1. Due to the last-minute booking, the purchase was non-refundable. Id. The next morning, Racz changed her mind and attempted to cancel her room but could not do so. Id. Racz contacted Nicole Rich, the supervisor of the medical secretaries in the division, attempted to blame her secretary for the situation, and denied telling her secretary to book the room “ASAP.” Id. at 1-2. When Rich confronted Racz with email proof of her instructions, Racz simply replied with, “well, whatever anyway.” Id. at 2. Jakub was notified of this situation. ECF No. 121-1 at 3.

Mayo conducted a “360 review” of Racz's performance in March 2018. Senior Associate Consultants typically undergo at least one 360 review during their appointment. ECF No. 124 at 8. This review process provided Racz with a forum in which to receive feedback from her colleagues regarding (1) what she should start doing, (2) what she should stop doing, (3) what she should continue doing, and (4) any other comments of value to her. ECF No. 125-5. Racz received both positive and negative feedback. See id. Her positive comments included statements such as:

• Dr. Racz is a valuable member of our multidisciplinary team. She is a hard worker and always willing to go above and beyond to meet the needs of the patient and team. She is approachable and respectful of all members of the team. She is a true team player.

• Dr. Racz is fantastic.

• Again. Dr. Racz is an exceptional physician. She is very skilled and the patient's needs always come first. She is also always very kind to staff and appreciates and supports each individual person's role and responsibilities. She truly is a pleasure to work with!

• Dr. Racz should continue to speak at conferences. She is an excellent speaker and is always well prepared.

• Dr. Racz is a pleasure to work with. She is committed to her patients and supportive to the staff she works with. Thanks for all your hard work!!

Id. at 4-5. Her negative comments, which were largely constructive, included:

• Over reacting. She seems overwhelmed at times. She seems to lack confidence. I don't think she gives herself ‘enough credit.'

• Dr. Racz should start to communicate effectively with the multidisciplinary team. At times she is quite [sic] and does not speak up. I think she has a lot of excellent experience to share with the team.

• Dr. Racz should work on minimizing expressions of frustration during busy clinic days or when stressful events occur.

•

...