United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT VINFEN
CORPORATION'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (#71).
M.
PAGE KELLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I.
Introduction.
Plaintiff
Solomon Nwachukwu brings this employment discrimination
lawsuit against defendant Vinfen Corporation, alleging he was
fired because of his race, color, and national origin. See
#26 ¶¶ 5, 14, 16. Mr. Nwachukwu was terminated on
March 4, 2011 and subsequently filed an administrative
complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against
Discrimination. Id. ¶¶ 4, 14. On May 10,
2016, plaintiff filed suit against Vinfen in the
Massachusetts Superior Court, Middlesex County. (#1-3 at
4-9.) Vinfen timely removed the case to this court on
September 6, 2016. Id. at 1-3. After the case was
removed, plaintiff amended his original complaint, claiming
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.: unlawful termination on the
basis of race, color, or national origin (Count I); hostile
work environment (Count II); and denial of compensation and
other terms (Count III). (#26 ¶¶ 15-25.)
On
December 28, 2018, Vinfen filed a motion for summary judgment
on all of plaintiff's claims (#71), which Plaintiff
opposed. (#81.) Vinfen filed a reply. (#88.) The motion is
now ready for disposition.
II. The
Facts.
The
following facts are undisputed except as indicated. Vinfen is
a private organization that provides healthcare services to
people with mental and physical disabilities, some of whom
are referred by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department
of Mental Health (“DMH”). (#75 ¶¶ 3-4.)
Plaintiff, who is of Nigerian descent, was hired as a Nurse
Coordinator for Vinfen in April 2010. (#76 ¶ 3; #82-1
¶ 21; #85 at 31, ll. 14-16; #85-1 at 79, ll. 4-8.)
Before
being hired by Vinfen, plaintiff worked as a registered nurse
for approximately fourteen years and had experience caring
for patients with mental health issues. (#85 at 13, ll. 16-
21; 17, ll. 7-15.) His job responsibilities at Vinfen
included, but were not limited to, assisting patients with
various health-related tasks, discharge planning for patients
in the hospital, and taking vital signs. Id. at 32,
ll. 3-18. Plaintiff often travelled offsite to meet with
patients at their homes, residential facilities, hospitals,
and nursing homes throughout northeastern Massachusetts.
Id. at 34, ll. 5-22. Plaintiff, like all other
Vinfen employees, used his personal vehicle to visit patients
and then submitted a mileage log for reimbursement from
Vinfen. (#89 ¶ 30.)
When
Vinfen employees visit a patient, they use a template
available in Vinfen's system to record service notes.
(#85 at 97-98, ll. 24-10.) The service notes include
information about medications, objectives, services
performed, and patient goals. Id. at 83-84, ll. 6-4.
Service notes are printed, signed, and submitted to the team
administrative assistant to be filed and given to the team
leader. Id. at 98, ll. 13-17; 102, ll. 18-22. On
occasion, Vinfen team members discuss the service notes and
patients during morning meetings, which occur each day at
8:00 a.m. Id. at 35, ll. 12-14; 102, ll. 1-5.
Service notes are submitted to the DMH for billing.
Id. at 107, ll. 11-14.
Plaintiff
asserts in his affidavit in opposition to Vinfen's motion
for summary judgment that he was never paid for any mileage
he traveled to visit patients. (#82-1 ¶ 68.) He does
not, however, dispute the validity of the paystubs on the
record, which indicate he was paid “Expense
Reimbursements” for mileage on July 23, 2010 and March
18, 2011. (#92-1; #92-2; #92-3; #92-4.)
Plaintiff's
relationship with his supervisor and team leader, Susan
Squiers, was strained. Plaintiff indicates in his affidavit
that Squiers was “extremely hostile” towards him,
by making fun of the way he spoke “especially in front
of other employees and during [] usual morning staff
meetings, ” questioning whether patients would allow
him into their homes, and stating she was “not
sure” she wanted him to administer her flu shot. (#82-1
¶¶ 70-73.) Plaintiff also maintains that Squires
denied his requests for trainings during work hours and made
him use personal time off when he returned to the office late
after an offsite meeting, though she did not require the same
of other employees who also returned late, and, on August 12,
2010, made “a jest and caricature” of him by
claiming that a form he had submitted regarding a
patient's doctor's orders was not valid. Id.
¶¶ 77-78; #84 at 27.
Plaintiff
further alleges that he emailed Squiers on August 17, 2010 to
complain about a colleague's “continued abuse and
derogatory comment[s]” and again on October 3, 2010
regarding her own treatment of him. Id. Plaintiff
claims that, in the October 3rd email, he threatened to
approach “higher management staff” if Squiers did
not end the “very stressful environment and working
under constant pressure.” Id. Plaintiff also
testified at his deposition that he spoke to Tania Ruiz,
Squiers' supervisor, more than once to complain about his
“concerns” regarding his working relationship
with Squiers. (#85 at 62, ll. 3-13; #85-1 at 154, ll. 11-13.)
On
November 30, 2010, plaintiff noticed that his family
photograph he kept on his desk had been defaced, in that
someone had written “U SUCK” across his face in
black marker. (#84 at 28; #84-1 at 7.) He informed Squiers
and asked colleagues who did it, but ultimately did not find
out who had defaced his photo. (#82-1 ¶ 79.) Plaintiff
alleges that Squiers ignored his complaint and did not
investigate the defacement. Id. ¶
79.[2]
Multiple
complaints were lodged against plaintiff regarding his
treatment of colleagues and his work practices during his
tenure at Vinfen. Colleagues emailed Squiers on September 28,
2010 and October 13, 2010 informing her that plaintiff was
being “intimidating and uncomfortable, ” and
“verbally aggressive.” (#77-2; #77-3.) The
October 13th complaint further alleged that plaintiff failed
to “properly communicate” information about a
patient's doctor, leaving his colleague without
appropriate documentation at a patient visit. (#77-3.) An
October 14, 2010 email to plaintiff directly from a colleague
noted that he failed to show up at a scheduled patient
appointment. (#74-2 at 6.)[3]
Plaintiff
also received complaints from outside sources. On September
14, 2010, plaintiff visited patient SP at home. (#82-1 ¶
24.) Plaintiff maintains that SP informed him that a service
provider from another organization called Homecare was
“rarely available and whenever she visit[ed] she rarely
d[id] her job.” Id. SP indicated she was
afraid to tell the other service provider about “how
dissatisfied she felt with her services[, ]” and
plaintiff offered to speak with the organization on her
behalf. Id. While Squiers initially commended
plaintiff for speaking with the organization (#85 at 69, ll.
17-21), on September 20, 2010, Julie DeLillo, Vinfen's
Director of Human Resources, emailed Squiers, notifying her
that HR had received a complaint from Homecare. (#77-1 at 2.)
The complaint stated that, when plaintiff called Homecare on
SP's behalf, he was “yelling at the staff . . . in
front of the clients . . . .” Id. Plaintiff
argues in his affidavit that he was not disciplined for the
alleged events regarding SP or ever informed that this
complaint was made prior to his termination, and that the
allegations laid out in the email from DeLillo are
“completely unfounded and totally false.” (#82-1
¶¶ 25, 29.)
Vinfen
also alleges that, on separate instances, plaintiff took
credit for a colleague's work and fabricated work
product. On November 1, 2010, two copies of a service note
for a visit to patient EG were submitted, one signed by Beth
Ajalat, another Vinfen employee, and one signed by plaintiff.
(#74-2 at 10, 11.) The service note signed by plaintiff was
not dated. Id. at 10. While plaintiff did not visit
patient EG on November 1, 2010 (#82-1 ¶ 65), on November
30, 2010, there was a morning staff meeting, at which Vinfen
alleges plaintiff presented the November 1st service note as
though it was his work. (#77-4 at 4.) Plaintiff states that
he picked up and signed the EG service note in error and that
he intended to shred it. (#85 at 116-17, ll. 19-4; #85-1 at
93, ll. 19- 22.) He alleges it was maliciously taken from his
desk and submitted by Squiers without his knowledge.
Id. at 119, ll. 9-23. Plaintiff also alleges that he
was not present at this staff meeting and presents a team
schedule to validate this claim, arguing that he could not
have attended because he did not begin work until 12:00 p.m.
that day. (#84-1 at 5.) However, Vinfen's assertion that
plaintiff was at the November 30th meeting is supported by an
attendance log, which includes Plaintiff's name and
signature on the list of attendees. (#90-4; #85-1 at 168, ll.
2-8.)
On
December 2, 2010, SL, another patient of Vinfin, contacted
Squiers to complain that Plaintiff had not visited her in the
last two months. (#75-1 at 2-3.)[4] Vinfen filed a formal
complaint with DMH, as required under Massachusetts law, and
the matter was investigated pursuant to DMH policy. (#75
¶ 5; #75-3 at 2.) Brad Richardson, DMH's Human
Rights Coordinator, contacted Jeanne Russo, Vice President of
Vinfen and “Person in Charge” for the DMH
Northeast Region, to handle the matter. (#75 ¶¶
7-9; #75-2 at 2.) Russo assigned Catherine Eccles,
Vinfen's Operations Director, to serve as the Fact Finder
to investigate SL's complaint. (#75 ¶
10.)[5]
After reviewing documents and interviewing SL and Vinfen
employees, Eccles prepared a report, finding that SL's
complaint was substantiated. (#91 ¶¶ 7-8; #91-1 at
1-4.) The report stated:
I found that although Solomon [plaintiff] is denying the
allegations, evidence exists indicating that Solomon did not
make home visits to [SL] on the dates reflected on Service
Notes bearing his signature. I found additional evidence
indicating falsification of documentation and taking credit
for another employee's work, which directly violates
Vinfen's standards for employee conduct.
(#91-1 at 3.)
Plaintiff
disputes the validity of SL's complaint and the
impartiality of the investigation. He contends that SL was
heavily medicated and “pleasantly confused, ” and
therefore, could not be relied on to accurately report
whether service providers had visited her on a given day.
(#85 at 88, ll. 9-17.) He also argues in his affidavit in
opposition to Vinfen's motion that Eccles'
investigation was “bogus, ” noting that he was
only interviewed for about three minutes and was not provided
with details of the allegations. (#82-1 ¶¶ 111-12.)
However, Vinfen's investigation into the complaint showed
that SL kept meticulous notes and always recorded the dates
of her appointments in her calendar. (#77-4 at 3-4.) It also
showed that SL, Squiers, Ajalat, and plaintiff were all
interviewed and numerous documents relevant to the complaint
were reviewed. Id. at 2.
On
March 4, 2011, after consulting with Russo and ensuring that
all protocol were followed, Vinfen's Senior Human
Resources Manager, Ann Tenero, and Vinfen's Operations
Director, Tania Ruiz, terminated plaintiff's employment
and provided him with a Corrective Action Form, citing
SL's complaint and the findings that emerged in the
subsequent investigation as the reasons for his termination.
(#76 ¶¶ 10-14; #76-1 at 2-3.) Vinfen also cited
plaintiff's falsification of the November 1st service
note for patient EG. (#76-1 at 2.) On June 6, 2011, Vinfen
hired a man of the same race (black) and national origin
(Nigerian) as plaintiff as his replacement. (#77 ¶ 10.)
For the
following reasons, Vinfen's motion for summary judgment
as to plaintiff's claims for unlawful termination (Count
I) and denial of compensation and other terms (Count III) is
granted, and Counts I and III are dismissed. Vinfen's
motion for summary ...