shervin v. partners healthcare system inc, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 Shervin v. Partners Healthcare System Inc, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/66

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1651

NI NA SHERVI N, M. D. ,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ant ,

v.

PARTNERS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, I NC. , ET AL. ,

Def endant s, Appel l ees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[ Hon. Deni se J . Casper , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Kayat t a, Sel ya and Dyk, *Ci r cui t J udges.

____________________

El l en J ane Zucker , wi t h whom Bur ns & Levi nson LLP was onbr i ef , f or appel l ant .

Nancy Ger t ner , Emma Qui nn- J udge, Zal ki nd Duncan & Bernst ei nLLP, Ni na J oan Ki mbal l , Ki mbal l Br ousseau LLP, Mi chael a May, andLaw Of f i ce of Mi chael a C. May on br i ef f or Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es

Uni on of Massachuset t s, Char l es Hami l t on Houst on I nst i t ut e f orRace and J ust i ce, Massachuset t s Empl oyment Lawyer s Associ at i on,Massachuset t s Law Ref or m I nst i t ut e, J ewi sh Al l i ance f or Law and

____________________* Of t he Feder al Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/66

Soci al Act i on, Uni on of Mi nor i t y Nei ghborhoods, and Gay & Lesbi anAdvocates & Def ender s, ami ci cur i ae.

Thomas A. Reed, wi t h whomHer bert L. Hol t z, Eugene J . Sul l i vanI I I , and Hol t z & Reed, LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ees Par t ner sHeal t hcare Syst em, I nc. and Massachuset t s Gener al Hospi t al

Physi ci ans Or gani zat i on.J ohn Pat r i ck Coakl ey, wi t h whomSt ephen D. Coppol o and Murphy& Ri l ey, P. C. wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee Har var d Medi cal School .

Rober t E. Bur gess, wi t h whom Edward F. Mahoney and Mar t i n,Magnuson, McCar t hy & Kenney were on br i ef , f or appel l ee Har r y E.Rubash, M. D.

Rebecca J . Wi l son, wi t h whom Ki l ey M. Bel l i veau and Peabody& Ar nol d LLP wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee J ames H. Her ndon, M. D.

Oct ober 9, 2015


3/66

- 3 -

SELYA, Circuit Judge. Pl ai nt i f f - appel l ant Ni na Sher vi n,

M. D. , secur ed admi ssi on t o one of t he count r y' s most pr est i gi ous

or t hopedi c resi dency progr ams. When she was pl aced on academi c

pr obat i on, she concl uded t hat her super i or s wer e di scr i mi nat i ng

agai nst her based on her gender and t her eaf t er began r et al i at i ng

agai nst her because she had dared t o chal l enge t he pr obat i on

deci si on. Bent on vi ndi cat i ng t hese suspi ci ons, Dr . Sher vi n

r epai r ed t o t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t and sued a gal l i mauf r y of

def endant s, asser t i ng cl ai ms under bot h st at e and f eder al l aw.

The di st r i ct cour t whi t t l ed down Dr . Sher vi n' s sui t

dur i ng pr et r i al pr oceedi ngs, and a 26- day j ur y t r i al ensued. The

j ury r et urned an acr oss- t he- board ver di ct f or t he def endant s. Dr .

Sher vi n appeal s, assever at i ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

mi scal i br at ed t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons, i mpr oper l y deni ed

r ecusal , made sever al unt oward evi dent i ary r ul i ngs, and commi t t ed

i nst r ucti onal er r or s. Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on of her

assever at i onal ar r ay, we f i nd no r ever si bl e er r or and, t her ef or e,

af f i r m t he j udgment bel ow.

I. BACKGROUND

We sket ch t he genesi s and t r avel of t he case, r eservi ng

a mor e exeget i c di scussi on of t he f act s unt i l our appr ai sal of t he

i ssues r ai sed on appeal .


4/66

- 4 -

I n 2003, Dr . Sher vi n began her post - gr aduat e t r ai ni ng i n

t he Harvard Combi ned Or t hopedi cs Resi dency Progr am ( HCORP or t he

pr ogr am) . The pr ogr am i s sponsor ed by Massachuset t s Gener al

Hospi t al ( MGH) , and t r ai ni ng t akes pl ace at f our Har var d-

af f i l i at ed t eachi ng hospi t al s: MGH, Br i gham and Women' s Hospi t al

( t he Br i gham) , Chi l dr en' s Hospi t al , and Bet h I sr ael Deaconess

Medi cal Cent er ( BI DMC) . MGH and t he Br i gham are bot h under t he

cor por at e umbr el l a of Par t ner s Heal t hCar e Syst em, I nc. ( Par t ner s) .

Dur i ng her f i ve- year r esi dency, Dr . Sher vi n was nomi nal l y an

empl oyee of Par t ner s and worked under an empl oyment cont r act wi t h

t hat ent i t y.

HCORP i s governed by an execut i ve commi t t ee compr i sed of

i t s di r ect or and t he chi ef s of t he or t hopedi cs depar t ment s at t he

f our par t i ci pat i ng hospi t al s. Dur i ng t he t i mes r el evant her et o,

Dr . J ames H. Her ndon served as t he pr ogr am' s di r ect or and Dr . Harr y

E. Rubash served as the chi ef of or t hopedi cs at MGH. Both of t hese

physi ci ans wer e empl oyed at MGH t hr ough a pr i vat e, nonpr of i t

cor por at i on, Massachuset t s Gener al Hospi t al Physi ci ans

Or gani zat i on ( MGPO) , and hel d f acul t y appoi nt ment s at Harvar d

Medi cal School ( Har var d) .

Mi d- way t hr ough t he f our t h year of her r esi dency, Dr .

Her ndon pl aced Dr . Sher vi n on academi c pr obat i on a deci si on Dr .

Shervi n soon came t o r egard as mot i vated by gender bi as. She


5/66

- 5 -

asser t s t hat , af t er she chal l enged t he deci si on i nt er nal l y, she

was subj ect ed t o f ur t her di scr i mi nat i on and an onsl aught of

r et al i at i on t hat pl agued her t hr oughout her t r ai ni ng and f ol l owed

her as she pur sued j ob oppor t uni t i es t hr oughout Massachuset t s.

On Oct ober 26, 2009, Dr . Sher vi n f i l ed a char ge of

di scr i mi nat i on wi t h t he Massachuset t s Commi ssi on Agai nst

Di scr i mi nat i on ( MCAD) agai nst Par t ner s, Har var d, Dr . Her ndon, and

Dr . Rubash. The MCAD l ater di smi ssed t he charge wi t hout pr ej udi ce

upon r ecei vi ng Dr . Sher vi n' s not i f i cat i on t hat she had el ect ed t o

pur sue her cl ai ms i n cour t . See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 9.

I n Apr i l of 2010, she sued i n t he f eder al di st r i ct cour t , asser t i ng

st at e- l aw cl ai ms of unl awf ul di scri mi nat i on and r et al i at i on

agai nst Par t ner s, MGPO, Harvar d, Dr . Her ndon, and Dr . Rubash;

f eder al - l aw cl ai ms of di scri mi nat i on and r et al i at i on agai nst

Par t ners, MGPO, and Harvar d; and common- l aw cl ai ms of t or t i ous

i nt er f er ence wi t h advant ageous busi ness r el at i ons agai nst Par t ner s

and Dr s. Herndon and Rubash.

Af t er extensi ve di scover y, t he def endant s moved f or

summary j udgment on al l of t he cl ai ms, argui ng t hat many were t i me-

barr ed and that t he remai nder wer e f orecl osed on ot her gr ounds.

The di st r i ct cour t grant ed par t i al summar y j udgment wi t h r espect

t o t he di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on cl ai ms, r ul i ng t hat ( f or al l

def endant s except Harvar d) conduct occur r i ng pr i or t o J une 5, 2008


6/66

- 6 -

coul d not ser ve as a basi s f or l i abi l i t y or damages. See Sher vi n

v. Par t ner s Heal t hcar e Sys. , I nc. , 2 F. Supp. 3d 50, 72 ( D. Mass.

2014) . The cour t f i xed t hi s dat e based on t he appl i cabl e 300- day

st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons under f eder al and st at e di scri mi nat i on

l aws, see 42 U. S. C. 2000e- 5( e) ( 1) ; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B,

5, and a t ol l i ng agr eement est abl i shi ng a const r uct i ve f i l i ng

dat e f or Dr . Sher vi n' s sui t of Apr i l 1, 2009. Har var d was not

bound by the t ol l i ng agr eement , and t he di st r i ct cour t f i xed i t s

l i mi t at i ons date at December 30, 2008. See Sher vi n, 2 F. Supp. 3d

at 72. The cour t was qui ck t o add, however , t hat "whi l e t he

[ d] ef endant s may not be f ound l i abl e f or conduct out si de t he

l i mi t at i ons per i od, " t he "j ur y may st i l l be per mi t t ed t o consi der

unt i mel y ' backgr ound evi dence' i n assessi ng t he vi abi l i t y of t he

act i onabl e di scri mi nat i on and r et al i at i on cl ai ms. " I d. at 71 n. 10.

The cour t deni ed t he summar y j udgment mot i ons i n al l ot her

r espect s. See i d. at 80.

Af t er a l engt hy t r i al , t he j ur y r et ur ned a t ake- not hi ng

ver di ct . Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

I n t hi s cour t , Dr . Sher vi n must er s a pl et hor a of cl ai ms

of er r or . We consi der t hem i n r oughl y t he same or der as t he

under l yi ng event s occur r ed bel ow.


7/66

- 7 -

II. THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT RULING

Dr . Sher vi n' s f l agshi p cl ai m i s that t he di str i ct cour t

er r ed i n i t s appl i cat i on of Massachuset t s l aw, l eadi ng i t t o

concl ude t hat cer t ai n al l eged act s of di scr i mi nat i on and

r et al i at i on wer e t i me- bar r ed. We pr ef ace our di scussi on of t hi s

i ssue wi t h a br i ef account of t he per t i nent f act s, t aki ng t hem i n

t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he non- movi ng par t y ( her e, Dr .

Sher vi n) . See Novi el l o v. Ci t y of Bos. , 398 F. 3d 76, 84 ( 1st Ci r .

2005) .

A.

Dr . Sher vi n i ni t i al l y di d wel l i n her r esi dency and

r ecei ved posi t i ve eval uat i ons f r omher super vi sor s. I n ear l y 2007,

however , Dr . Her ndon recei ved a compl ai nt f r om an or t hopedi cs

f el l ow about Dr . Sher vi n' s r ecent per f ormance i n t he pr ogr am. The

f el l ow r ai sed speci f i c pat i ent car e i ssues and expr essed concer ns

r egar di ng Dr . Sher vi n' s pr of essi onal i sm and t echni cal compet ence.

On Febr uar y 2, 2007, Dr . Herndon met wi t h Dr . Shervi n and

communi cat ed t hese concerns t o her . At t he end of t he meet i ng, he

pl aced her on academi c pr obat i on, t el l i ng her t hat pr obat i on coul d


8/66

- 8 -

have a ser i ous ef f ect on her l i censur e, her upcomi ng f el l owshi p, 1

and her abi l i t y t o f i nd a j ob.

A f ol l ow- up l et t er , dat ed Mar ch 7, out l i ned t he t er ms of

t he pr obat i on, i ncl udi ng mont hl y per f or mance eval uat i ons;

i ncr eased moni t or i ng; mandat or y at t endance at al l educat i onal

component s of t he pr ogr am; and a ban on moonl i ght i ng. The l et t er

war ned t hat i f Dr . Sher vi n' s per f or mance cont i nued t o det er i or at e,

she coul d be exposed t o f ur t her di sci pl i ne, i ncl udi ng di smi ssal

f r om t he pr ogr am.

Ar ound t he same t i me, Dr . Her ndon t ol d Dr . Sher vi n' s

ment or , Dr . Denni s Bur ke, t hat t he reason he ( Dr . Her ndon) had

gone di r ect l y t o pr obat i on wi t hout f i r st i ssui ng a war ni ng or

under t aki ng counsel i ng was due t o Dr . Sher vi n' s st oi c r esponse to

hi s concer ns; he added t hat , i n hi s 35 year s of super vi si ng

r esi dent s, he had never bef ore di sci pl i ned a woman r esi dent and

not seen her cr y. Based l argel y on t hi s comment , and on her

per cept i on t hat i mmedi ate pr obat i on was not st andar d pr act i ce i n

HCORP, Dr . Sher vi n concl uded t hat Dr . Herndon' s r ush t o j udgment

had been mot i vat ed by gender bi as ( speci f i cal l y, hi s

1I n 2006, Dr . Sher vi n accept ed a one- year ar t hr opl ast y

f el l owshi p at MGH, t o commence shor t l y af t er t he ant i ci pat edcompl et i on of her r esi dency i n J une of 2008.


9/66

- 9 -

"st er eot ypi cal at t i t ude" t owar d women and her f ai l ur e to "behave

i n t he way t hat Dr . Her ndon expect ed [ her ] t o behave") .

Dr . Sher vi n voi ced her concer ns t o Dr . Rubash i n March

of 2007. Accor di ng t o Dr . Sher vi n, Dr . Rubash expr essed sur pr i se

at Dr . Her ndon' s deci si on t o i mpose academi c pr obat i on wi t hout

consul t i ng HCORP' s execut i ve commi t t ee. But he t hen asked

r het or i cal l y i f she want ed t o gr aduat e f r om t he pr ogr am and

admoni shed her not t o t hi nk of "ever f i l i ng" sui t agai nst hi m, Dr .

Her ndon, or t he pr ogr am because doi ng so woul d not be benef i ci al

t o her car eer .

I n Dr . Sher vi n' s vi ew, t hi s i nci dent mar ked t he

begi nni ng of a st eady st r eam of r et al i at or y and di scr i mi nat or y

act s t hat cl ouded t he r emai nder of her r esi dency. These act s

i ncl uded t he zeal ous sol i ci t at i on of negat i ve comment s about her

by Dr s. Herndon and Rubash.

I n l at e Mar ch of 2007, Dr . Sher vi n r equest ed a revi ew of

t he pr obat i on deci si on by t he execut i ve commi t t ee. The commi t t ee

uphel d t he deci si on i n ear l y J une. Dr . Sher vi n cont ends t hat t he

r evi ew pr ocess was i ncompl et e, bi ased, and l acki ng i n basi c

pr ocedur al saf eguar ds. She al so al l eges that , shor t l y af t er t hi s

r evi ew concl uded, a member of t he execut i ve commi t t ee ( Dr . Mark

Gebhardt ) t ol d Dr . Bur ke t hat Dr . Sher vi n "needs t o get her head


10/66

- 10 -

scr ewed on and real i ze t hat she i s a woman i n a man' s speci al t y"

and "suck i t up. "

I n l at e J une of 2007, Dr . Her ndon and t he execut i ve

commi t t ee ext ended Dr . Shervi n' s probat i on f or t hr ee more mont hs

based on al l egat i ons of poor per f or mance on a r ot at i on at anot her

hospi t al . Dr . Sher vi n says t hat t hese al l egat i ons wer e

unsubst ant i at ed. She adds t hat , t hr oughout t he summer of 2007,

t he def endant s r epeat edl y t r i ed t o f i nd f aul t wi t h her per f or mance

and sol i ci t ed negat i ve eval uat i ons of her wor k. By Sept ember , she

f el t "t hr eat ened[ , ] unsaf e[ , and] har assed. "

About t he t i me t hat Dr . Sher vi n' s ext ended pr obat i on

ended i n Sept ember of 2007, Dr . Herndon was r epl aced as her

r esi dency pr ogr amdi r ect or ( t hough he r emai ned t he di r ect or of t he

over al l r esi dency pr ogr am and a member of HCORP' s execut i ve

commi t t ee) . She never t hel ess compl ai ns t hat r et al i at i on per si st ed

t hr ough her gr aduat i on f r om t he pr ogr am i n J une of 2008. 2

2 The cl ai med r et al i at i on bet ween Sept ember 2007 and J une 2008appear s t o consi st pr i mar i l y of t he execut i ve commi t t ee' s poor

handl i ng of her compl ai nt r egar di ng a pai r of obscene e- mai l sci r cul at i ng among HCORP resi dent s and a "wal k- out " of hergr aduat i on- day t hesi s pr esent at i on by her f el l ow r esi dent s. As t ot he l at t er event , Dr . Sher vi n cl ai ms t hat member s of t he execut i vecommi t t ee were aware t hat a wal k- out was pl anned and di d not hi ngt o pr event i t .


11/66

- 11 -

Ther e was mor e. Dr . Sher vi n compl ai ns t hat , f r om J ul y

of 2007 t o Apr i l of 2008, of f i ci al s of bot h Har var d and Par t ner s

f al sel y assured her t hat her pr obat i on woul d not need t o be

r epor t ed out si de t he pr ogr am ( such as t o st at e l i censi ng

aut hor i t i es or pr ospect i ve empl oyer s) . These assur ances, she

says, di scour aged her f r om i mmedi at el y pur sui ng her gr i evance

r i ght s wi t hi n t he pr ogr am. Moreover , t he assurances wer e not t r ue;

her pr obat i on r esul t ed i n bot h a del ay i n t he i ssuance of her

l i cense to pr act i ce medi ci ne and t he i ssuance of onl y a l i mi t ed

l i cense i n her f el l owshi p year . 3

Accor di ng t o Dr . Sher vi n, r et al i at or y act s cont i nued

even af t er her r esi dency ended. For one t hi ng, she says t hat t he

f ormal gr i evance pr ocess t hat she undert ook i n 2008 and 2009 ( whi ch

r esul t ed i n an af f i r mat i on of t he pr obat i on deci si on) was mar r ed

by bi as, f al sehoods, and i nsuf f i ci ent pr ocedur es. For anot her

t hi ng, she says t hat t he def endant s del i ber at el y bl ocked her f r om

at l east t hr ee j ob oppor t uni t i es i n Massachuset t s hospi t al s dur i ng

t he 2009- 2012 t i me f r ame.

3 Al t hough t he del ay i n t he i ssuance of her l i cense t opr act i ce medi ci ne r esul t ed i n a post ponement of t he st ar t of herf el l owshi p, she successf ul l y compl et ed t he f el l owshi p i n 2009.


12/66

- 12 -

B.

Wi t h t hi s f act ual pr edi cat e i n mi nd, we t ur n t o t he

mer i t s of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s summar y j udgment r ul i ng. We r evi ew

t hat det er mi nat i on de novo. See Novi el l o, 398 F. 3d at 84. To

avoi d " t he swi ng of t he summary j udgment scyt he, " Mul vi hi l l v.

Top- Fl i t e Gol f Co. , 335 F. 3d 15, 19 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) , t he non-

movi ng par t y ( her e, Dr . Sher vi n) bear s t he bur den of poi nt i ng t o

admi ssi bl e evi dence showi ng t he exi st ence of a genui ne i ssue of

mat er i al f act , see Bl acki e v. Mai ne, 75 F. 3d 716, 721 ( 1st Ci r .

1996) . The non- movant may not r el y on "concl usor y al l egat i ons,

i mpr obabl e i nf er ences, and unsupport ed specul at i on. " Medi na- Munoz

v. R. J . Reynol ds Tobacco Co. , 896 F. 2d 5, 8 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) .

I n t hi s case, t he cour t bel ow consi der ed f ul l br i ef i ng

and hear d pr ot r act ed argument s on t he mot i ons f or summary j udgment .

I t concl uded t hat al l conduct pr edat i ng J une 5, 2008 ( or December

30, 2008 f or Har var d) was t i me- bar r ed as a basi s f or ei t her f i ndi ng

l i abi l i t y or awar di ng damages on t he di scr i mi nat i on and

r et al i at i on cl ai ms. See Sher vi n, 2 F. Supp. 3d at 72; see al so 42

U. S. C. 2000e- 5( e) ( 1) ( set t i ng f or t h appl i cabl e 300- day st at ut e

of l i mi t at i ons) ; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, 5 ( si mi l ar ) . The

cour t t hen ent er ed par t i al summar y j udgment t o t hi s ef f ect , l eavi ng

open Dr . Sher vi n' s ot her cl ai ms. The cour t ' s rul i ng al l owed Dr .

Sher vi n t o i nt r oduce, as cont ext evi dence, pr oof about how she was


13/66

- 13 -

pl aced on pr obat i on and t he t i me- bar r ed act s of al l eged

r et al i at i on. See i d. at 71 n. 10.

C.

Bef or e us, Dr . Sher vi n ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

er r ed i n cal i br at i ng t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons f or her

di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on cl ai ms. As a t hr eshol d mat t er , she

i nsi st s t hat her cl ai ms di d not accr ue unt i l t he pr obat i on hi nder ed

her abi l i t y t o obt ai n a medi cal l i cense i n t he summer of 2008. We

do not agr ee.

Under bot h f eder al and st at e l aw, a cause of act i on f or

di scri mi nat i on or r et al i at i on accr ues when i t has a cryst al l i zed

and t angi bl e ef f ect on t he empl oyee and t he empl oyee has not i ce of

bot h t he act and i t s i nvi di ous et i ol ogy. See Thomas v. East man

Kodak Co. , 183 F. 3d 38, 50 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ; Wheat l ey v. Am. Tel .

& Tel . Co. , 636 N. E. 2d 265, 268 ( Mass. 1994) ; Adamczyk v. Augat ,

I nc. , 755 N. E. 2d 824, 829 ( Mass. App. Ct . 2001) . Her e, Dr . Sher vi n

was convi nced f r om t he out set t hat di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on

wer e at wor k. Thus, her t hesi s boi l s down t o a cont ent i on t hat

t he pr obat i on deci si on had no t angi bl e, concr et e ef f ect ei t her on

her career or her empl oyment as a medi cal r esi dent unt i l mi d- 2008.

Thi s cont ent i on i s unt enabl e. As no l ess an aut hor i t y

t han t he Supr eme Cour t has st at ed, " [ t ] he pr oper f ocus" f or

det er mi ni ng when a cause of act i on accr ues f or l i mi t at i ons pur poses


14/66

- 14 -

" i s upon t he t i me of t he di scr i mi nat or y act s, not upon t he t i me at

whi ch t he consequences of t he act s became most pai nf ul . " Del .

St at e Col l . v. Ri cks, 449 U. S. 250, 258 ( 1980) ( emphasi s omi t t ed)

( quot i ng Abr amson v. Uni v. of Haw. , 594 F. 2d 202, 209 ( 9t h Ci r .

1979) ) ; accor d Sch. Comm. of Br ockt on v. MCAD, 666 N. E. 2d 468, 472

n. 8 ( Mass. 1996) .

I t i s nose- on- t he- f ace pl ai n t hat Dr . Sher vi n had not i ce

al most i mmedi at el y af t er bei ng pl aced on pr obat i on t hat t hi s

di sci pl i nar y act i on was bot h t angi bl e and concr et e: her pr obat i on

was uncondi t i onal and i nst ant l y r esul t ed i n t he i mposi t i on of a

ser i es of bur densome condi t i ons ( such as hei ght ened super vi si on,

more f r equent eval uat i ons, and a ban on any out si de work) .

Mor eover , cont ext i s al ways i mpor t ant and i t i s si gni f i cant t hat

t he pr obat i on her e occur r ed i n t he cour se of a pr est i gi ous and

hi ghl y compet i t i ve academi c medi ci ne resi dency at a wor l d- f amous

gr oup of t eachi ng hospi t al s. I n t hat mi l i eu, pr obat i on was not

as Dr . Sher vi n woul d now have us bel i eve aki n t o sendi ng a hi gh

school st udent t o af t er - cl ass det ent i on. Rat her , i t was an ugl y

bl ot on an ot her wi se gl i t t er i ng recor d of accompl i shment and

somet hi ng t o be t aken qui t e ser i ousl y.

I ndeed, bot h Dr . Sher vi n and her ment or , Dr . Bur ke,

r ecogni zed t he gr avi t y of t he pr obat i on pl acement i mmedi at el y.

That was why, f r om t he ver y out set , Dr . Sher vi n f ought so hard t o


15/66

- 15 -

r ever se or expunge i t . Gi ven t he r ecor d i n t hi s case, i t st r ai ns

cr edul i t y t o suggest t hat pr obat i on was somet hi ng t o be t aken

l i ght l y. 4

Dr . Sher vi n' s sel f - ser vi ng aver ment s regar di ng

assur ances about t he i nnocuous l ong- t er m ef f ect s of her pr obat i on

do not al t er our concl usi on. Dur i ng t he per i od of r oughl y 300

days f r om t he t i me her pr obat i on was i mposed unt i l November of

2007, vi r t ual l y al l of t he i nf or mat i on t hat Dr . Sher vi n r ecei ved

about t he r epor t i ng of pr obat i on poi nt ed uner r i ngl y i n t he opposi t e

di r ect i on. For exampl e, Dr . Her ndon i nf or med her f r om t he ver y

begi nni ng ( bot h or al l y and i n wr i t i ng) t hat pr obat i on coul d have

a si gni f i cant negat i ve i mpact on her l i censur e, boar d

cer t i f i cat i on, and j ob pr ospect s. So, t oo, Dr . Bur ke as ear l y

4

I n suppor t of her argument t hat she coul d not havesuccessf ul l y chal l enged her pr obat i on bef or e August of 2008, Dr .Sher vi n r el i es heavi l y on an unpubl i shed di st r i ct cour t deci si oni n whi ch the cour t concl uded that pr obat i on i mposed on a medi calr esi dent di d not amount t o a mater i al l y adver se empl oyment act i on.See Badgai yan v. Pr i nci pi , No. 04- 12031, 2007 WL 1464604 at *1 ( D.Mass. May 21, 2007) . The Badgai yan deci si on t ur ns on i t s own f act sand i di osyncrat i c post ur e. For t hat r eason, i t cannot suppor t t he

wei ght t hat Dr . Sher vi n pi l es upon i t . And i n any event , t hedeci si on i s of quest i onabl e val i di t y. Af t er al l , t hi s cour t hashel d t hat even a st r ongl y wor ded war ni ng l et t er pl aced i n aper sonnel f i l e, wi t hout mor e, was a suf f i ci ent l y cryst al l i zed f or mof har mt o st ar t t he r unni ng of t he l i mi t at i ons per i od. See Mi l l erv. N. H. Dep' t of Cor r . , 296 F. 3d 18, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) .


16/66

- 16 -

as Apr i l of 2007 expr essed hi s deep concer n about t he l ong- t er m

ef f ect s of pr obat i on, wr i t i ng t o HCORP' s execut i ve commi t t ee t hat

"pr obat i on, i f al l owed t o st and, i s such a ser i ous di sci pl i nar y

act i on t hat i t wi l l be r equi r ed t o be r epor t ed on ever y j ob or

f el l owshi p appl i cat i on and on ever y st at e l i censur e r enewal . " Dr .

Sher vi n does not deny t hat she knew about t hi s l et t er and i t s

cont ent s. To r ound out t he pi ct ur e, t he Di r ect or of t he Of f i ce of

Women' s Career s at MGH warned Dr . Shervi n i n J ul y of 2007 t hat

pr obat i on "MAY need t o be report ed" dependi ng on t he speci f i c

quest i ons asked on st at e or hospi t al l i censi ng f or ms.

To be sure, i n November of 2007, MGH' s chi ef medi cal

of f i cer ( Dr . Br i t ai n Ni chol son) asked Dr . Bur ke t o advi se Dr .

Sher vi n t hat she shoul d j ust "accept t he pr obat i on" si nce i t was

an i nt er nal mat t er t hat di d not need t o be r epor t ed ext er nal l y.

He emphasi zed t hat her pr obat i on ought not t o be t he f ocus of

f ut ur e r ef er ences. But t hat opi ni on, st andi ng al one, di d not er ase

t he ver y real ef f ect s t hat pr obat i on al r eady had wr ought on t he

t er ms and condi t i ons of Dr . Sher vi n' s r esi dency. See, e. g. , Mi l l er

v. N. H. Dep' t of Cor r . , 296 F. 3d 18, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . Nor was

t her e a r easonabl e basi s f or bel i evi ng t hat per sons who mi ght

subsequent l y be t asked wi t h wr i t i ng r ef er ences woul d see t he mat t er

t he same way; t her e wer e si mpl y t oo many cont r ary i ndi cat i ons.

Under t hese ci r cumst ances, t he evi dence about what was sai d t o Dr .


17/66

- 17 -

Bur ke i n November of 2007 was not si gni f i cant l y pr obat i ve as t o

whet her t he al l eged di scr i mi nat i on was l i kel y t o cease and,

t heref ore, coul d not def eat summary j udgment . See Anderson v.

Li ber t y Lobby, I nc. , 477 U. S. 242, 249 ( 1986) .

The shor t of i t i s t hat Dr . Sher vi n' s knowl edge of t he

pr obat i on and i t s i mmedi at e, t angi bl e ef f ect s, t oget her wi t h her

l oudl y br ui t ed bel i ef t hat t he pr obat i on deci si on was a f or m of

di spar at e di sci pl i ne mot i vat ed by gender di scri mi nat i on, i s al l

t hat was needed f or her cause of act i on t o accr ue and the

l i mi t at i ons cl ock t o begi n t o t i ck. See Mi l l er , 296 F. 3d at 22;

Wheat l ey, 636 N. E. 2d at 268; Adamczyk, 755 N. E. 2d at 829.

D.

Dr . Sher vi n next cont ends t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d

have appl i ed an except i on t o t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons known as

t he cont i nui ng vi ol at i on doct r i ne. See 804 Mass. Code Regs.

1. 10( 2) ( st at i ng t hat " t he 300 day r equi r ement shal l not be a bar

t o f i l i ng i n t hose i nst ances wher e f act s ar e al l eged whi ch i ndi cat e

t hat t he unl awf ul conduct compl ai ned of i s of a cont i nui ng

nat ur e" ) . Under Massachuset t s l aw, t he cont i nui ng vi ol at i on

doct r i ne ser ves as an except i on t o t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons onl y

i f t hr ee pr er equi si t es ar e sat i sf i ed. A pl ai nt i f f who seeks t o

der i ve t he benef i t of t he cont i nui ng vi ol at i on doct r i ne bear s t he

bur den of est abl i shi ng al l t hr ee of i t s el ement s. See Cuddyer v.


18/66

- 18 -

Stop & Shop Super mkt . Co. , 750 N. E. 2d 928, 941- 42 ( Mass. 2001) ;

Ocean Spr ay Cr ans. , I nc. v. MCAD, 808 N. E. 2d 257, 266- 67 ( Mass.

2004) .

Fi r st , t he cl ai m must be one t hat ar i ses f r om "a ser i es

of r el at ed event s t hat have t o be vi ewed i n t hei r t ot al i t y i n or der

t o assess adequat el y t hei r di scr i mi nat or y nat ur e and i mpact . "

Cuddyer , 750 N. E. 2d at 936. Second, t he cl ai m must be "anchored"

by at l east one i nci dent of di scri mi nat i on or r et al i at i on

t r anspi r i ng wi t hi n t he l i mi t at i ons per i od. Novi el l o, 398 F. 3d at

86; see Cuddyer , 750 N. E. 2d at 938. Thi s anchor i ng event must be

"subst ant i al l y r el at e[ d] " t o ear l i er i nst ances of di scr i mi nat i on

or r et al i at i on and must cont r i but e t o the cont i nuat i on of t he

pat t er n of conduct t hat f or ms t he basi s of t he cl ai m. Cuddyer ,

750 N. E. 2d at 938; see Novi el l o, 398 F. 3d at 86. Thi r d, t he

pl ai nt i f f must show t hat a r easonabl e per son i n her ci r cumst ances

woul d have r ef r ai ned f r omf i l i ng a compl ai nt wi t hi n t he l i mi t at i ons

per i od. See Cuddyer , 750 N. E. 2d at 942. On t hi s f i nal el ement ,

t he i nqui r y becomes whet her t he pl ai nt i f f knew or r easonabl y shoul d

have known wi t hi n t he l i mi t at i ons per i od bot h t hat her wor k

envi r onment was di scr i mi nat ory and t hat t he pr obl ems she

at t r i but ed t o t hat di scr i mi nat or y envi r onment wer e unl i kel y t o

cease. See i d. ; see al so Ocean Spr ay, 808 N. E. 2d at 269

( expl ai ni ng t hat t he l i mi t at i ons per i od begi ns when " t he empl oyee


19/66

- 19 -

knew or r easonabl y shoul d have been awar e t hat t he empl oyer was

unl i kel y t o af f or d hi m a r easonabl e accommodat i on" ) . As t o t he

l i kel i hood vel non of i mpr ovement , t he quest i on i s whet her t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s "del ay i n i ni t i at i ng t he l awsui t , consi der ed under an

obj ect i ve st andar d, was unr easonabl e, " and summary j udgment may be

appr opr i at e on t hi s el ement "wher e a pat t er n of harassment ,

consi der ed f r om t he vi ewpoi nt of a r easonabl e per son i n t he

pl ai nt i f f ' s posi t i on, i s so suf f i ci ent l y known, per vasi ve, and

uncor r ect abl e" t hat i t woul d be unr easonabl e t o del ay f i l i ng sui t .

Cuddyer , 750 N. E. 2d at 941- 42.

I n t hi s i nst ance, we can pr oceed di r ect l y t o t he t hi r d

st ep of t he cont i nui ng vi ol at i on i nqui r y. Even i f t he t i me- bar r ed

act s al l eged by Dr . Sher vi n sat i sf y t he f i r st t wo el ement s a

mat t er on whi ch we t ake no vi ew her cl ai m f al t er s at t he t hi r d

st ep. 5

5

I n r eachi ng t hi s concl usi on, we need not addr ess Dr .

Sher vi n' s r emonst r ance t hat t he di st r i ct cour t mi sappl i edMassachuset t s l aw i n concl udi ng t hat her cl ai m was not of t he sor tt o whi ch t he cont i nui ng vi ol at i on doct r i ne may appl y. Our r evi ewi s de novo, and we may af f i r m t he ent r y of summary j udgment on anybasi s made mani f est by t he r ecor d. See Gi l l en v. Fal l on Ambul .Ser v. , I nc. , 283 F. 3d 11, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) .


20/66

- 20 -

Dr . Sher vi n does not di sput e nor coul d she t hat she

knew of t he al l eged i nci dent s of r et al i at i on and di scr i mi nat i on

and r egarded t hem as pervasi ve. I t i s undi sput ed on t he summary

j udgment r ecor d t hat Dr . Sher vi n came t o bel i eve al most i mmedi at el y

af t er t he Febr uary 2007 meet i ng that Dr . Her ndon had di scr i mi nated

agai nst her based on gender and t hat she was exper i enci ng a

cont i nui ng st r eam of r el at ed di scri mi nat or y and r et al i at or y act s.

Her own deposi t i on t est i mony i ndi cat es t hat she expr essed speci f i c

concer ns about di scr i mi nat i on to Dr . Rubash as ear l y as Mar ch of

2007 and speci f i c concer ns about r et al i at i on t o the execut i ve

commi t t ee t he f ol l owi ng mont h.

Of cour se, under t he cont i nui ng vi ol at i on doct r i ne as

f ormul at ed by t he Massachuset t s cour t s and t he MCAD, a person' s

"awareness and dut y" t o br i ng sui t , Ocean Spr ay, 808 N. E. 2d at

267, ar i ses onl y when t he per son has good r eason t o bel i eve t hat

her "pr obl ems woul d [not ] cease, " Cuddyer , 750 N. E. 2d at 942.

Her e, Dr . Sher vi n adduced no pr obat i ve evi dence that , dur i ng the

300 days f ol l owi ng ei t her t he Febr uar y 2007 pr obat i on deci si on or

Dr . Rubash' s March 2007 comment s, she t hought i t l i kel y t hat her

di scr i mi nat or y t r eat ment woul d cease. I ndeed, Dr . Sher vi n' s

compl ai nt char act er i zed her exper i ence af t er she chal l enged t he

pr obat i on deci si on as a "wi t ch hunt and a campai gn . . . waged

hour t o hour , day t o day, weeks on end wi t h no resol ut i on i n


21/66

- 21 -

si ght . " She f ur t her decl ar ed t hat t he "r et al i at i on and

di scr i mi nat i on cont i nued unabat ed" even af t er bot h she and Dr .

Bur ke r eached out t o Par t ner s and Har var d f or assi st ance.

These st at ement s make pel l uci d Dr . Sher vi n' s ear l y

awar eness of bot h her pl i ght and i t s unr el ent i ng nat ur e. The

r ecor d evi dence t el l s t he same t al e. I t convi nci ngl y shows, as

ear l y as March of 2007, t hat Dr . Sher vi n was keenl y aware t hat

pr obat i on ent ai l ed i mmedi at e negat i ve ef f ect s, had pot ent i al l y

del et er i ous l ong- t er m consequences, and was not l i kel y t o be

r esci nded. And mat t er s went downhi l l f r om t her e: by J une, t he

execut i ve commi t t ee had rat i f i ed the pr obat i on deci si on (usi ng a

pr ocess t hat Dr . Sher vi n at t he t i me f ound f undament al l y unf ai r )

and Dr . Herndon backed by t he execut i ve commi t t ee had ext ended

t he pr obat i onary per i od by thr ee mont hs on t he basi s of compl ai nt s

t hat Dr . Shervi n bel i eved were t r umped up and i nadequat el y

i nvest i gat ed.

A r easonabl e per son i n Dr . Sher vi n' s shoes, knowi ng the

i mmedi ate downsi de of pr obat i on and i t s pot ent i al l y det r i ment al

ef f ect s on her f ut ur e car eer , coul d not pl ausi bl y have t hought

t hat her di scr i mi nat or y t r eat ment was l i kel y t o abat e. Thi s i s

especi al l y t r ue si nce she pr of essed t o bel i eve t hat t he

deci si onmaker s who had the power t o f urni sh a r emedy were t aki ng

bi ased vi ews of her eval uat i ons, sear chi ng f or f aul t , and "bui l di ng


22/66

- 22 -

a case agai nst [ her ] . " Though some modest amel i orat i ons di d occur

( such as i n Sept ember of 2007 when her pr obat i on was f i nal l y l i f t ed

and Dr . Her ndon was r epl aced as her r esi dency di r ect or ) , t hose

amel i or at i ons appar ent l y di d not hi ng t o r el i eve Dr . Sher vi n' s

sense t hat she was under si ege. Cont emporaneousl y, Dr . Shervi n

compl ai ned t o HCORP' s admi ni st r at i on about e- mai l s sent t o the

r esi dent communi t y f r om t he e- mai l account s of ot her r esi dent s

e- mai l s t hat she percei ved t o be of f ensi ve t o women. She had

r equest ed conf i dent i al i t y f or her r epor t and, when anot her

r esi dent accused Dr . Sher vi n of bei ng t he sour ce of t he compl ai nt ,

she concl uded t hat a l eak had occur r ed as part of t he ongoi ng

campai gn of r etal i at i on. Even when she met wi t h Dr . J ames Kasser

i n Sept ember of 2007 and l ear ned t hat she had been t aken of f

pr obat i on, she t ol d hi m of her cont i nui ng f eel i ng of bei ng

t hr eatened, unsaf e, and harassed i n t he pr ogr am. Those f ears wer e

exacer bat ed when, accor di ng t o Dr . Sher vi n, Dr . Kasser t ol d her

t hat t he execut i ve commi t t ee woul d "cont i nue t o pr obe at r esi dent s

t o f i nd any f aul t wi t h [ her ] " and expr essed concer ns about her

pr of essi onal behavi or ( whi ch she t hought made "no sense" i n t he

cont ext of her ef f or t s whi l e on pr obat i on) . I n t he same t i me

f r ame, she al so was poi nt edl y i nf ormed by one of her super vi si ng

physi ci ans t hat "peopl e wer e out t o get [ her ] , " so t hat she ought

t o "wat ch [ her ] back. " I n Dr . Sher vi n' s own wor ds, " [ t ] he


23/66

- 23 -

r et al i at or y at mospher e cont i nued" even af t er t he l i f t i ng of her

pr obat i on.

An asser t i on that a si t uat i on seemed l i kel y t o i mpr ove

must be gr ounded on more t han r het or i c. Her e, not hi ng t r anspi r ed

t hat woul d have suf f i ced t o gr ound an obj ect i vel y reasonabl e bel i ef

t hat what Dr . Sher vi n r egar ded as a pat t er n of di scr i mi nat i on and

r et al i at i on woul d di ssi pat e.

Nor ar e t he assur ances t hat Dr . Sher vi n al l egedl y

r ecei ved about t he l ong- t er m ef f ect s of her pr obat i on adequat e t o

cr eat e a genui ne di sput e as t o t he f oot i ng f or a r easonabl e bel i ef

t hat her si t uat i on was l i kel y t o be "successf ul l y r emedi ed. " I d.

at 942. I n ar gui ng f or a cont r ar y concl usi on, Dr . Sher vi n poi nt s

t o at l east t wo i nst ances of supposedl y equi vocal or ul t i mat el y

i ncorr ect advi ce t hat she r ecei ved t hr oughout 2007 about t he i mpact

of pr obat i on on her medi cal l i censur e: t he execut i ve commi t t ee' s

st atement i n J une t hat many other r esi dent s had r esol ved pr obl ems

"wi t hout any negat i ve consequences, " and assurances f r om Dr .

Ni chol son i n t he f al l t hat t he pr obat i on was pur el y i nt er nal and

not r epor t abl e t o t he l i censi ng boar d. 6 These st at ement s, however ,

6

What Dr . Sher vi n suggest s ar e ot her i ndi cat i ons t hat herpr obat i on mi ght be r emoved f r om her r ecord occur r ed i n 2008.Consequent l y, t hey coul d not have support ed a r easonabl e bel i ef


24/66

- 24 -

are not pr obat i ve of whet her Dr . Sher vi n r easonabl y coul d have

bel i eved t hat her work envi r onment woul d i mpr ove. Whether or not

her pr obat i on was r epor t abl e woul d not af f ect t he dur at i on or

conduct of t he campai gn of di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on whi ch

Dr . Shervi n bel i eved was af oot f r om and af t er t he moment she was

pl aced on pr obat i on. And i n al l event s, Dr . Sher vi n does not cl ai m

t hat t hese assur ances wer e pr oduct s of a di scr i mi nat or y or

r et al i at ory ani mus as opposed t o conf usi on, mi st ake, or subsequent

changes i n t he l i censi ng boar d' s r egul at i ons.

To sumup, Dr . Sher vi n knew, f r omt he t i me her probat i on

was i mposed i n Febr uary of 2007, t hat pr obat i on had mater i al l y

adver se r ami f i cat i ons bot h f or t he r est of her r esi dency and ( at

l east pot ent i al l y) f or her f ut ur e car eer . She f or med an al most

i mmedi at e bel i ef , never di l ut ed, t hat her pr obat i on was spar ked by

gender bi as; and she l i kewi se came t o bel i eve, wi t hi n a mat t er of

weeks, t hat t hi s change i n her st atus was mer el y t he begi nni ng of

a per vasi ve pat t er n of di scr i mi nat or y and r et al i at or y act s. Nor

had she shown any r easonabl e basi s f or hopi ng t hat t he si t uat i on

woul d i mpr ove: t he execut i ve commi t t ee r ebuf f ed her at t empt t o

t hat Dr . Sher vi n' s s i t uat i on woul d i mpr ove wi t hi n t he 300- dayl i mi t at i ons per i od f ol l owi ng t he Febr uar y 2007 pr obat i on deci si on.


25/66

- 25 -

have t he pr obat i on deci si on r ever sed i n J une of 2007, t he t er m of

her pr obat i on was ext ended shor t l y ther eaf t er , and act s t hat she

bel i eved t o be di scr i mi nat or y and r et al i at or y cont i nued t o occur .

The bot t om l i ne i s t hat t he r ecor d, even when t aken i n

t he l i ght most hospi t abl e t o Dr . Sher vi n, does not suppor t a

f i ndi ng t hat a reasonabl e per son i n Dr . Sher vi n' s ci r cumst ances

woul d have t hought her si t uat i on apt t o i mpr ove wi t hi n the

l i mi t at i ons per i od. See gener al l y Cuddyer , 750 N. E. 2d at 941- 42

( set t i ng f or t h t he "gui di ng pr i nci pl es t o be appl i ed by a j udge

deci di ng a mot i on f or summary j udgment " wi t h respect t o t he

cont i nui ng vi ol at i on doct r i ne) . Whi l e Dr . Sher vi n has poi nt ed t o

bi t s and pi eces of an extended di al ogue t hat mi ght , i f t aken i n a

vacuum, suppor t her cont r ar y posi t i on, we ar e obl i ged t o vi ew t he

summary j udgment r ecor d as a whol e. See, e. g. , Mesni ck v. Gen.

El ec. Co. , 950 F. 2d 816, 827 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) . So vi ewed, t her e i s

no "si gni f i cant l y pr obat i ve" evi dence, Ander son, 477 U. S. at 249-

50, t o under pi n a f i ndi ng t hat Dr . Sher vi n can sat i sf y t he t hi r d

el ement of t he Massachuset t s cont i nui ng vi ol at i on f r amewor k. I t

f ol l ows i nexor abl y t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not er r i n hol di ng

t hat Dr . Sher vi n' s t i me- bar r ed di scri mi nat i on and r et al i at i on


26/66

- 26 -

cl ai ms coul d not be r escued t hr ough t he cont i nui ng vi ol at i on

doct r i ne. 7

E.

I n an ef f or t t o t ur n t he t i de, Dr . Sher vi n st r i ves t o

convi nce us t hat t her e ar e t wo ot her gr ounds on whi ch a j ur y mi ght

have f ound t hat her di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on cl ai ms avoi ded

t he l i mi t at i ons bar . We ar e not per suaded.

Dr . Sher vi n begi ns wi t h a suggest i on t hat t he st at ut e of

l i mi t at i ons was t ol l ed by her pur sui t , st ar t i ng i n Mar ch of 2007,

of an i nt ernal gr i evance under her empl oyment cont r act . We need

not l i nger l ong over t hi s suggest i on. Massachuset t s r ecogni zes an

except i on t o t he st at ut e of l i mi t at i ons when an aggr i eved par t y

ent ers i nt o gr i evance pr oceedi ngs " pur suant t o an empl oyment

7

Al t hough Dr . Sher vi n' s br i ef i ng l acks cr yst al l i ne cl ar i t yon t hi s poi nt , she appear s t o l i mi t her at t ack on t he di st r i ctcour t ' s const r uct i on of t he cont i nui ng vi ol at i on doct r i ne t o herst at e- l aw di scr i mi nat i on and r et al i at i on cl ai ms. Even so, we not e( f or t he sake of compl et eness) t hat wher e, as her e, a cl ai mi nvol ves a pat t er n of conduct whi ch i ncl udes a di scr et e act t hatmay i t sel f be act i onabl e, t he cont i nui ng vi ol at i on doct r i ne i sar guabl y mor e accommodat i ng under Massachuset t s l aw t han under

f eder al l aw. See Tobi n v. Li ber t y Mut . I ns. Co. , 553 F. 3d 121,130, 131 n. 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( compar i ng f eder al and Massachuset t sl aw wi t h r espect t o cont i nui ng vi ol at i on doct r i ne) . Accor di ngl y,any chal l enge t o t he cour t ' s r ef usal t o appl y t he cont i nui ngvi ol at i on doct r i ne t o Dr . Sher vi n' s f eder al cl ai ms woul d per f or cef ai l .


27/66

- 27 -

cont r act " wi t hi n 300 days f r om t he chal l enged conduct . 804 Mass.

Code Regs. 1. 10( 2) . The di st r i ct cour t r ul ed t hat t hi s except i on

di d not appl y because t he MCAD has i nt er pr et ed t he regul at i on as

appl yi ng onl y t o those gr i evance pr oceedi ngs under t aken pur suant

t o col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement s. See Sher vi n, 2 F. Supp. 3d

at 62- 64; see al so Hal l v. FMR Corp. , 559 F. Supp. 2d 120, 125 ( D.

Mass. 2008) ( di scussi ng under l yi ng MCAD deci si on i n whi ch agency

f or mal l y t ook t hi s posi t i on) ; Cuddyer , 750 N. E. 2d at 938 ( not i ng

Massachuset t s cour t s' consi st ent def er ence to MCAD deci si ons and

pol i ci es) . Dr . Sher vi n i nsi st s t hat t hi s i s an i ncor r ect readi ng

of Massachuset t s l aw and t hat she pr oper l y i nvoked her gr i evance

r i ght s by a l et t er t o t he HCORP execut i ve commi t t ee dat ed March

27, 2007.

We need not del ve i nt o t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r at i onal e

because Dr . Sher vi n di d not i nvoke t he gr i evance pr ocess i n March

of 2007. We di vi de our expl anat ory comment s i nto t wo segment s,

consi st ent wi t h t he f act t hat Dr . Sher vi n' s empl oyment cont r act

i ncorporated both an adver se act i on pr ocess and a r edr ess of

gr i evance pr ocess.

The adverse act i on process pert ai ns onl y t o cer t ai n

enumer at ed adver se act i ons, not i ncl udi ng pr obat i on, and Dr .

Sher vi n was t ol d t hat pr obat i on was not consi der ed an adver se

act i on. Per haps mor e i mpor t ant l y, t hat pr ocess set s out pr ocedur al


28/66

- 28 -

r ul es t o be f ol l owed by t he hospi t al i n t aki ng such an act i on

agai nst a t r ai nee. I t does not pr ovi de a mechani sm t hr ough whi ch

a resi dent or ot her empl oyee can i ni t i at e compl ai nt s agai nst her

empl oyer . I t i s, t her ef or e, i mpui ssant as a means of accessi ng

t he gr i evance except i on.

The r edress of gr i evance process i s a di f f er ent mat t er .

That process appl i es t o " [ g] r i evances pert ai ni ng t o t he t r ai ni ng

pr ogr am, f acul t y, or wor k envi r onment . " Thus, t he r edr ess of

gr i evance pr ocess appl i es on i t s f ace t o a per son i n Dr . Sher vi n' s

posi t i on.

But t her e i s a r ub: under t he r edr ess of gr i evance

pr ocess, gr i evances must "f i r st be di r ect ed t o t he t r ai ni ng pr ogr am

di r ect or i n wr i t i ng, and copi ed t o t he Ser vi ce Chi ef and t he

Di r ect or of Gr aduat e Medi cal Educat i on. " The pr ogr am di r ect or

t hen has t wo weeks t o r espond. I f a r esponse i s not f or t hcomi ng

or i s unsat i sf act or y, t he t r ai nee may t hen r equest a hear i ng.

Dr . Sher vi n' s l et t er si mpl y di d not i nvoke t hi s pr ocess

and i t was never const r ued as i nvoki ng i t . The l et t er , whi ch

was addressed t o the chai r of HCORP' s execut i ve commi t t ee, was

copi ed onl y t o ot her commi t t ee members. The r edr ess of gr i evance

pr ocess was not ment i oned. The ad hoc natur e of Dr . Sher vi n' s

l et t er and her f ai l ur e t o i ni t i at e t he r edr ess of gr i evance pr ocess


29/66

- 29 -

wer e conf i r med by her subsequent i nt er act i ons wi t h Par t ner s' st af f

and HCORP.

When Dr . Shervi n' s l et t er was r ecei ved, HCORP undert ook

what i t descri bed as "an i nf or mal [ ] r evi ew. " I n l at e Apr i l ,

Par t ner s' vi ce pr esi dent f or gr aduat e medi cal educat i on, Dr . Debr a

Wei nst ei n, r emi nded Dr . Sher vi n t hat she coul d "ut i l i ze t he

Par t ner s resi dent gr i evance pr ocess at any t i me. " Dr . Sher vi n

t ook no act i on i n r esponse t o t hi s r emi nder ; f or aught t hat

appear s, she nei t her sought t o avai l her sel f of t he gr i evance

pr ocess nor sought t o go beyond t he i nf ormal r evi ew t hat had been

pr ovi ded.

The execut i ve commi t t ee i nf or med Dr . Sher vi n on J une 6

t hat i t had compl et ed i t s i nf or mal r evi ew. Ther eaf t er , Dr . Sher vi n

t ook no act i on anent gr i evance pr oceedi ngs unt i l t he spr i ng of

2008, when she br ought concerns about her medi cal l i censur e to

of f i ci al s at Par t ner s. Even at t hat st age, t he r ecor d makes

mani f est t hat both she and Par t ner s bel i eved t hat she had not

act i vat ed t he r edr ess of gr i evance pr ocess. I t was not unt i l l at e

March of 2008 t hat Dr . Sher vi n asked t o meet wi t h Par t ner s'

of f i ci al s t o l ear n about "opt i ons . . . f or addr essi ng gr i evances. "

She r ecei ved a repl y l ess t han a week l at er , r emi ndi ng her of t he

r edr ess of gr i evance pr ocess. I n May of t hat year , Dr . Sher vi n


30/66

- 30 -

not ed i n an e- mai l t hat she had not yet " i ni t i at e[ d] a f or mal

gr i evance pr ocess. "

I n l i ght of t he consi st ent i nt er pr et at i on pl aced by bot h

Par t ner s and Dr . Sher vi n on her Mar ch 27 l et t er and the act i ons

t hat ensued, we t hi nk i t cryst al cl ear t hat Dr . Sher vi n di d not

i nvoke t he r edr ess of gr i evance pr ocess by means of t hat l et t er .

That i s game, set , and mat ch. Even i f we assume t hat

t he r edr ess of gr i evance pr ocess, i f pr oper l y i nvoked, woul d engage

t he gear s of t he gr i evance except i on, Dr . Sher vi n cannot benef i t

f r om t hat except i on. 8

Fi nal l y, we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t t hat t her e i s

no cogni zabl e basi s f or equi t abl e t ol l i ng her e. I n Massachuset t s,

such an ext r aor di nary remedy i s appl i ed "spar i ngl y i n empl oyment

di scr i mi nat i on cases. " Adamczyk, 755 N. E. 2d at 830. I nvoki ng

such a pal l i at i ve i s per mi t t ed when, say, "t he pl ai nt i f f i s

excusabl y i gnor ant about t he . . . st at ut or y f i l i ng per i od, or

where t he def endant or t he MCAD has af f i r mat i vel y mi sl ed t he

pl ai nt i f f . " Andr ews v. Ar kwr i ght Mut . I ns. Co. , 673 N. E. 2d 40, 41

8To be sure, Dr . Sher vi n di d t r i gger t he r edress of gr i evancepr ocess by l et t er dated August 7, 2008. She has not r el i ed ont hat l et t er ; and i n al l event s, any t ol l i ng ef f ect at t r i but abl e t ot hat l et t er woul d come t oo l at e t o sweep i n Dr . Sher vi n' s t i me-bar r ed al l egat i ons.


31/66

- 31 -

( Mass. 1996) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . So, t oo, t he doct r i ne can be

empl oyed wher e "t he potent i al def endant encour ages or caj ol es t he

pot ent i al pl ai nt i f f i nt o i nacti on. " Cher el l a v. Phoeni x Techs.

Lt d. , 586 N. E. 2d 29, 31 ( Mass. App. Ct . 1992) . None of t hese

scenar i os i s pr esent i n t hi s case and as we expl ai n bel ow,

nothi ng of comparabl e magni t ude t r anspi r ed her e.

To begi n, Dr . Sher vi n does not pl ead i gnor ance about t he

f i l i ng per i od. Second, t hough Dr . Sher vi n mai nt ai ns t hat she was

mi sl ed about t he i mpact of her pr obat i on on her f ut ur e l i censur e,

she does not suggest t hat she r el i ed on any such mi sr epr esent at i ons

i n consi der i ng whet her or when t o f i l e her compl ai nt . The mer e

f act t hat Dr . Sher vi n may have r el i ed on some mi sr epr esent at i ons

by t he def endant s f or ot her pur poses does not est abl i sh t he

necessary l i nkage bet ween t hose mi sr epr esent at i ons and her del ay

i n br i ngi ng her compl ai nt . See Engl i sh v. Pabst Br ewi ng Co. , 828

F. 2d 1047, 1049 ( 4t h Ci r . 1987) ( "To i nvoke equi t abl e t ol l i ng, t he

pl ai nt i f f must t her ef or e show t hat t he def endant at t empt ed t o

mi sl ead hi m and t hat t he pl ai nt i f f r easonabl y r el i ed on t he

mi sr epr esent at i on by negl ect i ng t o f i l e a t i mel y char ge. " ) . Gi ven

t hi s r ecor d, we di scer n no pl ausi bl e basi s f or a cl ai mof equi t abl e

t ol l i ng. See, e. g. , Ri ver a- D az v. Humana I ns. of P. R. , I nc. , 748

F. 3d 387, 390 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .


32/66

- 32 -

F.

That ends t hi s aspect of t he mat t er . Because al l t he

br oadsi des t hat Dr . Sher vi n ai ms at t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ent r y of

part i al summary j udgment mi ss t he mark, we uphol d t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s cal i br at i on of t he l i mi t at i ons per i od and, t hus, i t s

summary j udgment r ul i ng.

III. RECUSAL

Dr . Sher vi n ar gues t hat a new t r i al i s necessar y because

t he di st r i ct j udge f ai l ed t o recuse her sel f when an appear ance of

par t i al i t y ar ose. See 28 U. S. C. 455( a) . Thi s ar gument i s doubl y

wai ved.

A.

We set t he st age. Dr . Geor ge Dyer was a r esi dent i n

ort hopedi cs at MGH dur i ng Dr . Sher vi n' s r esi dency ( one year ahead

of her ) and, i n ear l y 2007, r epor t ed t o Dr . Her ndon concer ns about

Dr . Sher vi n' s per f or mance. I n r ul i ng on a mot i on t o quash

di scover y subpoenas, t he di st r i ct j udge not i ced t hat document s

r el at i ng t o Dr . Dyer wer e i ncl uded among t he r equest s. The

di st r i ct j udge pr ompt l y di scl osed t hat Dr . Dyer i s her f i r st

cousi n. She added t hat she di d not consi der t hi s rel at i onshi p t o

be a basi s f or r ecusal , but she nonet hel ess i nvi t ed t he par t i es t o

r egi st er any concer ns t hat t hey mi ght have wi t h t he cour t . Dr .

Sher vi n di d not voi ce any obj ect i ons, nor di d she ur ge the j udge' s


33/66

- 33 -

r ecusal at any poi nt . She l i kewi se r emai ned si l ent when Dr . Dyer

was i dent i f i ed t o t he j ur y as a f act wi t ness i n t he openi ng

st atement s of t wo of t he def endant s ( Par t ner s and Dr . Her ndon) ,

whi ch wer e del i ver ed bef or e t he f i r st wi t ness was swor n.

Near t he end of her case i n chi ef , Dr . Sher vi n cal l ed

Dr . Dyer as a host i l e wi t ness. Dur i ng di r ect exami nat i on, t he

di st r i ct j udge sust ai ned def ense obj ect i ons t o sever al quest i ons

ai med at devel opi ng an ost ensi bl e i nconsi st ency i n Dr . Her ndon' s

t est i mony an i nconsi st ency t hat pur por t edl y ar ose because Dr .

Her ndon t est i f i ed t hat Dr . Dyer r epor t ed hi s concer ns i n a meet i ng

wher e anot her r esi dent was pr esent , whi l e Dr . Dyer sai d i n hi s

deposi t i on t hat he and Dr . Herndon had met al one.

Af t er decl i ni ng to under t ake r edi r ect exami nat i on and

r el easi ng t he wi t ness, Dr . Sher vi n' s counsel r equest ed a si debar

conf er ence. At si debar , she st ated t hat she was "concer ned about

t he way i n whi ch thi s wi t ness was handl ed by t he cour t " and asked

t he j udge t o i nf or m t he j ur y of her r el at i onshi p wi t h t he wi t ness

and/ or t o r ead Dr . Dyer ' s deposi t i on t est i mony i nt o t he r ecor d.

She di d not , however , ask t he j udge t o r ecuse her sel f .

When def ense counsel poi nted out t hat t he j udge had

pr evi ousl y di scl osed her r el at i onshi p t o Dr . Dyer and no obj ect i on

had been f or t hcomi ng, Dr . Sher vi n' s counsel r esponded: " I wi t hdr aw

my request , " pr esumabl y ref er r i ng t o bot h of her cur at i ve request s.


34/66

- 34 -

To di spel any f ur t her doubt on t hi s i ssue, t he di st r i ct j udge

f or mal l y deni ed t he r emedi es sought by Dr . Sher vi n' s counsel ,

not i ng f or t he r ecor d t he "natur e of t he exami nat i on" of Dr . Dyer

and her "pri or di scl osur e on t he r ecor d" of her r el at i onshi p t o

Dr . Dyer . The j udge added t hat she had sust ai ned t he def endant s'

obj ect i ons because t he quest i ons wer e i mpr oper i n f orm, and t he

st at ement s sought t o be i nt r oduced as pr i or i nconsi st ent

st at ement s di d not appear t o be i nconsi st ent wi t h Dr . Dyer ' s

deposi t i on t est i mony.

B.

Agai nst t hi s backdr op, Dr . Sher vi n ar gues t hat t he

j udge' s obl i gat i on t o r ecuse hersel f bl ossomed when counsel

poi nt ed out t hat t he j udge, knowi ng t hat Dr . Dyer ' s deposi t i on

t est i mony was i nconsi st ent wi t h hi s t est i mony on t he st and,

f or ecl osed "ef f or t s t o i mpeach Dyer wi t h hi s pr i or deposi t i on

t est i mony and di d not per mi t expl anat i on of counsel ' s concer ns

unt i l t he wi t ness was excused. " Thi s ar gument st umbl es at t he

st ar t i ng gat e.

I n t hi s case, t he j udge f or t hr i ght l y di scl osed her

r el at i onshi p t o t he wi t ness pr i or t o t r i al and pr ovi ded ampl e

oppor t uni t y f or t he par t i es t o move f or r ecusal . Dr . Sher vi n di d

not seek t he j udge' s di squal i f i cat i on but , r at her , by her si l ence

acqui esced i n t he j udge' s cont i nued par t i ci pat i on. That was a


35/66

- 35 -

wai ver , pur e and si mpl e. See, e. g. , I n r e Car gi l l , I nc. , 66 F. 3d

1256, 1261 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( " [ W] ai ver s based on si l ence ar e

st andar d f ar e. " ) . Wher e, as her e, t he put at i ve gr ound f or r ecusal

i nvol ves onl y an asser t ed appear ance of par t i al i t y and t hus r est s

sol el y on 28 U. S. C. 455( a) , a j udge i s per mi t t ed t o accept a

par t y' s wai ver as l ong as t hat wai ver i s pr eceded by a f ul l

di scl osur e of t he al l eged basi s f or di squal i f i cat i on. See 28

U. S. C. 455( e) ; see al so Car gi l l , 66 F. 3d at 1261; El Feni x de

P. R. v. M/ Y J OHANNY, 36 F. 3d 136, 141 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . I t f ol l ows

t hat Dr . Sher vi n cannot now be heard t o compl ai n that t he j udge

shoul d have recused her sel f despi t e t he par t i es' i nf or med

wi l l i ngness t o have her pr esi de.

Nor di d subsequent devel opment s i n t he t r i al mandat e t he

j udge' s r ecusal . To begi n, Dr . Sher vi n' s counsel never asked t he

j udge t o st ep down, even when she expressed her concer ns about t he

j udge' s handl i ng of Dr . Dyer . And wi t h r espect t o t he r el i ef t hat

she di d r equest , t her e was a second wai ver . At t he si debar

conf er ence f ol l owi ng Dr . Dyer ' s di r ect exami nat i on whi ch

occur r ed near t he end of t r i al Dr . Sher vi n' s counsel was r emi nded

of her ear l i er acqui escence, and she t hen wi t hdr ew her r equest f or

any cur at i ve act i on. That , t oo, was a wai ver an i nt ent i onal

r el i nqui shment of a known r i ght . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v.

Rodr i guez, 311 F. 3d 435, 437 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( expl ai ni ng t hat " [ a]


36/66

- 36 -

par t y who i dent i f i es an i ssue, and t hen expl i ci t l y wi t hdr aws i t ,

has wai ved t he i ssue" ) .

We need not t ar r y. The di st r i ct j udge per f or med

admi r abl y i n managi ng a hi ghl y cont ent i ous t r i al . Ther e i s no

cl ai m of any act ual bi as on her par t and t he r ecor d r eveal s no

f oot i ng f or any such cl ai m. As a gener al r ul e, a par t y i s not

ent i t l ed t o r el i ef on appeal t hat she di d not seek bel ow. See,

e. g. , Cahoon v. Shel t on, 647 F. 3d 18, 29 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; Beaul i eu

v. I RS, 865 F. 2d 1351, 1352 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) . Thi s case f al l s

comf or t abl y wi t hi n t hi s gener al r ul e, not wi t hi n t he l ong- odds

except i on t o i t . We f i nd, wi t hout ser i ous quest i on, t hat t he

di st r i ct j udge di d not er r by f ai l i ng t o r ecuse her sel f sua spont e

despi t e t he par t i es' t aci t agr eement t hat she cont i nue t o pr esi de.

IV. EVIDENTIARY RULINGS

Dr . Sher vi n t akes i ssue wi t h a host of evi dent i ar y

r ul i ngs t hat she says depr i ved her of t he abi l i t y t o pr esent

cri t i cal evi dence of di scri mi nat i on and r et al i at i on. We r evi ew

r ul i ngs admi t t i ng or excl udi ng evi dence f or abuse of di scret i on.

See Tor r es- Ar r oyo v. Rul l n, 436 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ; Gomez

v. Ri ver a Rodr guez, 344 F. 3d 103, 114 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . Her e, we

have exami ned al l of Dr . Sher vi n' s cl ai ms wi t h car e. Many r el at e

t o r ul i ngs l i mi t i ng evi dence of t he exper i ences of ot her

i ndi vi dual s who had al l egedl y f aced gender - based di scr i mi nat i on or


37/66

- 37 -

r et al i at i on at t he hands of one or mor e of t he def endant s. Ot her s

r el at e t o t he excl usi on of evi dence t hat Dr . Sher vi n hoped woul d

show di f f er ent i al t r eat ment i n di sci pl i nar y or hi r i ng cont ext s or ,

al t er nat i vel y, woul d pr ovi de addi t i onal backgr ound i nf or mat i on on

t he cul t ur e at MGH and i t s depart ment of or t hopedi cs.

I t woul d serve no usef ul pur pose t o pl ow t hr ough al l of

t hese cl ai med bevues one by one. Her e, i t suf f i ces f or t he most

par t t o say t hat af t er per scrut at i on of t he r ecor d and t he par t i es'

ar gument s, we ar e sat i sf i ed t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse

i t s di scret i on i n excl udi ng t hi s evi dence, par t i cul ar l y si nce much

of i t was ei t her cumul at i ve, at t enuat ed f r omt he i ssues under l yi ng

t he l i t i gat ed cl ai ms, per i pher al , over l y conduci ve t o creat i ng

j uror conf usi on, or unf ai r l y prej udi ci al t o one or mor e of t he

def endant s.

Thi s omni bus r ul i ng r ef l ect s our awar eness t hat t r i al

cour t s enj oy a super i or "coi gn of vant age" i n under t aki ng t he

"del i cat e bal anci ng" r equi r ed t o make t hese ki nds of evi dent i ar y

det er mi nat i ons. Fi t zger al d v. Expr essway Sewer age Const r . , I nc. ,

177 F. 3d 71, 75 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) . Gi ven t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

evi dent sol i ci t ude f or pol i ci ng t he bounds of r el evancy and keepi ng

t he j ur y f ocused on t he i ssues i n t he case, we ar e unwi l l i ng t o

di st ur b t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i r st - hand assessment of much of t he

pr of f er ed evi dence.


38/66

- 38 -

Ther e ar e, however , t hree evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs t hat

t hough support abl e deserve more exeget i c t r eat ment . Each of

t hese t hr ee rul i ngs excl uded an out - of - cour t st at ement of f er ed by

Dr . Sher vi n as evi dence of r et al i at or y ani mus. She assert s t hat

t hese st atement s qual i f y as non- hearsay under var i ous except i ons

t o t he hear say r ul e, and t hat t he cour t ' s excl usi onar y r ul i ngs

wer e so uni quel y i mport ant and so egr egi ousl y wr ong t hat t hey

er oded t he f oundat i on of her case.

Bef ore t ur ni ng to t hese t hr ee chal l enges, we summar i ze

a f ew f i r st pr i nci pl es. Out - of - cour t st at ement s, not made under

oat h, ar e gener al l y regar ded as hear say evi dence and, t hus, ar e

pr esumpt i vel y i nadmi ssi bl e t o pr ove t he t r ut h of t he mat t er

asser t ed. See Fed. R. Evi d. 801( c) , 802. Ther e ar e sever al

ci r cumst ances, however , i n whi ch such st at ement s can shed thei r

hear say char act er and become el i gi bl e f or admi ssi on i nt o evi dence

t o pr ove t he t r ut h of t he mat t er assert ed. See i d. 801( d) . Yet

even t hen, out - of - cour t st at ement s l i ke ot her pi eces of evi dence

must pass t hr ough f ur t her scr eens: t hey may be excl uded on, say,

r el evancy gr ounds, see i d. 401, or on gr ounds of undue pr ej udi ce,

wast e of t i me, pot ent i al f or j ur y conf usi on, and t he l i ke, see i d.

403. I t i s agai nst t hi s backdr op t hat we appr oach t he t ask at

hand.


39/66

- 39 -

A.

Dr . Sher vi n sought t o el i ci t t hr ough t he t est i mony of

Par t ner s' f or mer boar d chai r t hat MGH' s CEO, Dr . Pet er Sl avi n, had

once t ol d hi m t hat "t her e' s not a cour t i n t he l and t hat coul d

f or ce me t o hi r e Dr . Sher vi n back. " Dr . Sher vi n sought t o admi t

t hi s hearsay st atement t o show bi as agai nst her i n t he upper

echel ons of MGH and t o expl ai n Par t ner s' i nt er f er ence wi t h a

pot ent i al j ob at Cool ey Di cki nson Hospi t al ( Cool ey) .

The r el evant f act s ar e as f ol l ows. Cool ey a hospi t al

not t hen af f i l i at ed wi t h Par t ner s of f er ed Dr . Sher vi n a posi t i on

i n t he spr i ng of 2012. The of f er was wi t hdr awn, however , bef ore

she coul d accept i t . I n t he same t i me f r ame, Cool ey was i n merger

t al ks wi t h MGH. Bui l di ng on t hi s f oundat i on, Dr . Sher vi n cont ends

t hat Dr . Sl avi n' s comment coul d have support ed an i nf er ence t hat

he ( or ot her s f ol l owi ng hi s or der s) used t he r el at i onshi p wi t h

Cool ey of f i ci al s t o st i f l e her j ob of f er . Thi s l ed t o Dr .

Sher vi n' s at t empt t o i nt r oduce evi dence of Dr . Sl avi n' s hear say

st atement , but when def ense counsel obj ected t o the quest i oni ng of

t he boar d chai r about t hi s st at ement , t he di st r i ct cour t sust ai ned

t he obj ect i on.

Al t hough t he chal l enged st at ement , i f vi ewed i n

i sol at i on, may seem t o boost Dr . Sher vi n' s t heor y of t he case, t he

evi dence as i t unf ol ded at t r i al t el l s a mor e nuanced t al e. Dr .


40/66

- 40 -

Sher vi n di d not est abl i sh thr ough ei t her evi dence or pr of f er when

t he st at ement was al l eged t o have been made by Dr . Sl avi n, nor di d

she connect t hi s st atement i n any way t o Cool ey' s wi t hdr awal of

t he j ob of f er . What i s mor e, Dr . Sher vi n di d not adduce a shr ed

of evi dence showi ng t hat Dr . Sl avi n was hi msel f a deci si onmaker

wi t h r egar d t o t he Cool ey j ob of f er or t hat he i n any way i nf l uenced

or at t empt ed t o i nf l uence Cool ey' s deci si on not t o hi r e Dr .

Sher vi n. I ndeed, t her e i s no evi dence t hat Dr . Sl avi n ever spoke

t o or ot her wi se communi cat ed wi t h anyone at Cool ey.

I n excl udi ng t he chal l enged st at ement , t he di st r i ct

cour t r el i ed on Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 403. That r ul e r equi r es

a cour t t o bal ance t he pr obat i ve val ue of par t i cul ar evi dence

agai nst t he unf ai r l y pr ej udi ci al ef f ect of t hat evi dence. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Mehanna, 735 F. 3d 32, 59 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , cer t .

deni ed, 135 S. Ct . 49 ( 2014) . Wi t hout more meat on t he bones, t hi s

l one remar k was har dl y pr obat i ve of any act ual i nf l uence by t he

def endant s on t he wi t hdr awal of t he j ob of f er f r om Cool ey. See,

e. g. , Lewi s v. Ci t y of Chi . Pol i ce Dep' t , 590 F. 3d 427, 441- 43

( 7t h Ci r . 2009) ( not i ng, i n empl oyment di scr i mi nat i on case, t hat

comment s of non- deci si onmaker s had l i t t l e pr obat i ve val ue as t o

t he i nt ent or mi ndset of t he deci si onmaker s) .

To be sure, we expl ai ned i n Tr aver s v. Fl i ght Servi ces

& Syst ems, I nc. , 737 F. 3d 144 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , t hat even wi t hout


41/66

- 41 -

di r ect evi dence of causat i on a j ur y may reasonabl y i nf er t hat t he

wi shes of a "ki ng" of t en wi l l be car r i ed out by hi s " cour t i er s"

when other evi dence shows t hat r et al i atory ani mus r esi des at t he

"apex of t he or gani zat i onal hi er ar chy. " I d. at 147. But Tr aver s

i s di st i ngui shabl e i n many r espect s. Fi r st , t he excl uded st at ement

her e was much mor e l i ke t he (nonpr obat i ve) "st r ay, " "st al e, " or

"ambi guous" comment s cont r ast ed by t he Tr avers cour t wi t h t he

( pr obat i ve) "st r ongl y hel d, " " r epeat edl y voi ced, " and pr eci se

di r ecti ves of t he CEO. I d. I t i s onl y t he l at t er t hat Tr aver s

sai d may permi t an i nf er ence t hat ani mus was communi cat ed

t hr oughout t he organi zat i on. Second, Dr . Sl avi n' s comment was not

made to an under l i ng who mi ght have been i ncl i ned t o cur r y f avor

by car r yi ng out hi s di r ecti ves. See i d. Last but f ar f r oml east

Dr . Sl avi n di d not occupy t he apex of Cool ey' s or gani zat i onal

hi er ar chy ( i ndeed, he was not par t of t hat hi er ar chy) . And

al t hough one can specul ate t hat t he pendency of mer ger negot i at i ons

may have accor ded Dr . Sl avi n' s vi ews some wei ght i f made known t o

t he pr ospect i ve mer ger par t ner , t her e i s not hi ng i n t he r ecor d

t hat suggest s he ever communi cat ed t hose vi ews t o Cool ey' s

deci si onmaker s ( or , f or t hat mat t er , t o anyone associ at ed wi t h

Cool ey) .

When, as i n t hi s i nst ance, hi ghl y char ged evi dence i s of

doubt f ul pr obat i ve val ue, i t may be excl uded. See, e. g. , Wi l l i ams


42/66

- 42 -

v. Dr ake, 146 F. 3d 44, 48- 49 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) . The case f or

excl usi on i s st r onger , of cour se, "wher e, as her e, t he evi dence

has a hi gh pot ent i al f or unf ai r pr ej udi ce. " Downey v. Bob' s Di sc.

Fur ni t ur e Hol di ngs, I nc. , 633 F. 3d 1, 9 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . These

t enet s ar e cont r ol l i ng. Gi ven t hat t he chal l enged st at ement was

bot h i ncendi ar y i n nat ur e and of f er ed wi t hout any suppor t i ng

evi dence t hat woul d have tet her ed i t t o t he si t uat i on t hat pl ayed

out at Cool ey, we cannot say t hat t he cour t bel ow abused i t s

di scret i on i n st r i ki ng t he Rul e 403 bal ance i n f avor of excl usi on.

Af t er al l , "[ o] nl y r ar el y and i n ext r aor di nar i l y compel l i ng

ci r cumst ances wi l l we, f r omt he vi st a of a col d appel l at e r ecor d,

r ever se a di st r i ct cour t ' s on- t he- spot j udgment concer ni ng t he

r el at i ve wei ghi ng of pr obat i ve val ue and unf ai r ef f ect . " Freeman

v. Package Mach. Co. , 865 F. 2d 1331, 1340 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) .

B.

Dr . Sher vi n at t empt ed t o i nt r oduce evi dence, t hr ough the

t est i mony of t he f or mer CEO of Mi l t on Hospi t al ( Mi l t on) , t hat Dr .

Gebhardt , t he chi ef of t he or t hopedi cs depart ment at BI DMC, bl ocked

Dr . Sher vi n' s hi r i ng at Mi l t on ( a BI DMC af f i l i at e) i n t he summer

of 2012. Thi s evi dence compr i sed out - of - cour t st at ement s t hat Dr .

Gebhar dt woul d " f i nd i t di f f i cul t " t o wor k wi t h "a per son who was

sui ng hi m" and t hat i f Dr . Sher vi n was per mi t t ed t o wor k at t he

new or t hopedi cs cent er at Mi l t on, he woul d wi t hdr aw BI DMC' s


43/66

- 43 -

i nvol vement t her e. Dr . Sher vi n sought t o admi t Dr . Gebhar dt ' s

st at ement s i n suppor t of her r et al i at i on cl ai ms agai nst Har var d

and Par t ner s, i nsi st i ng t hat t he st at ement s wer e non- hear say under

Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 801( d) ( 2) ( D) , whi ch cover s admi ssi ons of

a par t y- opponent .

Pr i or t o t r i al , Par t ner s and ot her def endant s ( but not

Harvar d) moved i n l i mi ne t o excl ude Dr . Gebhardt ' s st atement s,

argui ng t hat t hey were made whi l e Dr . Gebhar dt was act i ng under

t he aut hor i t y of a non- par t y, namel y, Har var d Medi cal Facul t y

Physi ci ans, a nonpr of i t cor por at i on consi st i ng of physi ci ans

empl oyed at BI DMC. Dr . Sher vi n opposed t hi s mot i on, post ul at i ng

t hat Dr . Gebhardt ' s s t atement s wer e made i n hi s capaci t y as a

member of HCORP' s execut i ve commi t t ee and t hat Par t ner s was

ul t i mat el y r esponsi bl e f or HCORP. The di st r i ct cour t grant ed t he

mot i on i n l i mi ne, concl udi ng t hat t he chal l enged st at ement s

concerned an " i ndependent deci si on" by Dr . Gebhardt , whi ch br oke

t he causal chai n needed t o est abl i sh a connect i on t o Par t ner s.

See Mol e v. Uni v. of Mass. , 814 N. E. 2d 329, 343 ( Mass. 2004) . Dr .

Sher vi n pr ovi des no j ust i f i cat i on f or second- guessi ng t hi s

det er mi nat i on.

Dur i ng t he t r i al , t he di str i ct cour t car ef ul l y si f t ed

t hr ough evi dence i nvol vi ng st at ement s of Dr . Gebhar dt t hat Dr .

Sher vi n was at t empt i ng t o at t r i but e t o Par t ner s. The cour t


44/66

- 44 -

admi t t ed some st at ement s t hat were made wi t hi n the scope of Dr .

Gebhardt ' s execut i ve commi t t ee posi t i on ( such as hi s st atement t o

Dr . Bur ke t hat Dr . Shervi n needed t o get her head "scr ewed on"

because she was "a woman i n a man' s speci al t y") . However , t he

cour t excl uded ot her st at ement s. We di scer n no abuse of

di scr et i on: gi ven t he evi dence t hat Dr . Gebhar dt ' s st at ement s

r egar di ng Dr . Sher vi n' s pot ent i al empl oyment at Mi l t on wer e not

wi t hi n t he scope of hi s r ol e on HCORP' s execut i ve commi t t ee, t he

cour t had suf f i ci ent r eason t o excl ude those st at ement s.

Al t er nat i vel y, Dr . Sher vi n t heor i zes t hat t he excl uded

st atement s wer e i mput abl e t o Harvar d by vi r t ue of Dr . Gebhardt ' s

f acul t y appoi nt ment and hi s seat on HCORP' s execut i ve commi t t ee.

The di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed t hi s prof f er , concl udi ng t hat t hese

hear say st at ement s were not admi ss i bl e agai nst Harvar d and t hat

any pr obat i ve val ue was subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by the r i sk of

unf ai r pr ej udi ce.

Once agai n, we f i nd no abuse of di scr et i on. Rul e

801( d) ( 2) ( D) exempt s f r om t he def i ni t i on of hear say st at ement s

"of f er ed agai nst an opposi ng par t y and . . . made by the par t y' s

agent or empl oyee on a mat t er wi t hi n t he scope of t hat r el at i onshi p

and whi l e i t exi st ed. " Her e, t hough, Dr . Sher vi n ut t er l y f ai l ed

t o l ay a f oundat i on f or showi ng t hat t he chal l enged st at ement s,

any of t he st af f i ng deci si ons at Mi l t on, or any pur por t ed t hr eat


45/66

- 45 -

t o wi t hdr aw BI DMC' s medi cal f acul t y suppor t f el l wi t hi n t he scope

of Dr . Gebhar dt ' s Har var d f acul t y appoi nt ment . Thus, t he excl uded

st at ement s di d not qual i f y as a par t y opponent ' s st at ement s wi t hi n

t he pur vi ew of Rul e 801( d) ( 2) ( D) . See, e. g. , Vazquez v. Lopez-

Rosar i o, 134 F. 3d 28, 34- 35 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) .

Dr . Sher vi n has a f al l back posi t i on wi t h r espect t o t he

admi ssi bi l i t y of t hese st at ement s. She suggest s t hat t he

st atement s shoul d have been admi t t ed as t o Harvar d f or t he l i mi t ed

pur pose of i mpeachi ng Dr . Gebhardt ' s deni al t hat he ever sai d he

woul d not support t he new cent er i f Dr . Sher vi n wer e br ought on

boar d. See Fed. R. Evi d. 613( b) . But as t he di st r i ct cour t not ed,

t he pr obat i ve val ue of t hi s i mpeachment evi dence was gr eat l y

over shadowed by the f act t hat Dr . Sher vi n f ai l ed t o i nt r oduce any

compet ent evi dence t o pr ove r et al i at i on by Har var d wi t h respect t o

t he posi t i on at Mi l t on. I ndeed, Dr . Sher vi n f ai l ed t o dr edge up

even a sci nt i l l a of evi dence showi ng Har var d' s i nvol vement i n t he

sel ecti on pr ocess f or t hi s posi t i on. 9 Because t her e was t oo great

9

The st r ongest evi dence t hat Dr . Sher vi n has on t hi s poi nti s a post i ng f or t he posi t i on t hat r eci t es t hat t he successf ulappl i cant wi l l r ecei ve a cl i ni cal appoi nt ment t o the Har var dmedi cal f acul t y and not es t hat Har var d i s an equal oppor t uni t yempl oyer . Thi s evi dence st andi ng al one does not t ake Dr . Sher vi nver y f ar .


46/66

- 46 -

a r i sk under t he ci r cumst ances t hat t he j ur y woul d consi der t he

chal l enged evi dence as subst ant i ve evi dence agai nst Har var d, t he

di st r i ct cour t acted wel l wi t hi n t he enci nctur e of i t s di scr et i on

i n sust ai ni ng Har var d' s obj ect i on t o t hi s evi dence. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Hudson, 970 F. 2d 948, 956 n. 2 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( uphol di ng

excl usi on of evi dence under Rul e 403 even t hough evi dence

admi ssi bl e under Rul e 613( b) ) ; see al so Fai gi n v. Kel l y, 184 F. 3d

67, 80 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( "We ar e ext r emel y rel uct ant t o second-

guess t he di st r i ct cour t ' s bat t l ef i el d det er mi nat i on t hat t he

scenar i o at hand pr esent ed a wor r i some pot ent i al f or [ unf ai r

pr ej udi ce] . " )

C.

The next bone of cont ent i on i nvol ves an out - of - cour t

st atement made to Dr . Bur ke by Dr . J oseph McCart hy, a vi ce- chai r

i n the MGH ort hopedi cs depart ment and the di r ector of t he cent er

f or j oi nt r econst r uct i on at Newt on- Wel l esl ey Hospi t al ( NWH) , a

Par t ner s af f i l i at e. Thi s st at ement was cont ai ned i n an Apr i l 2009

e- mai l exchange bet ween the t wo doct or s about t he possi bi l i t y of

f i ndi ng Dr . Sher vi n a posi t i on at NWH upon t he compl et i on of her

f el l owshi p. I n r el evant par t , Dr . Bur ke wr ot e "I am gl ad t hat you

ar e on boar d wi t h [ Dr . Sher vi n' s] NWH/ MGH st af f posi t i on, " and Dr .

McCar t hy r esponded, " I ' m gl ad we' r e on the same page wi t h thi s.

I ' l l do my par t out her e. " Dr . Sher vi n pr of f er ed t hi s evi dence,


47/66

- 47 -

t oo, as non- hear say under Rul e 801( d) ( 2) ( D) . I t s pur pose, she

assert s, was t o ref ut e cl ai ms t hat she had not been hi r ed at NWH

ei t her because she had not f or mal l y appl i ed f or such a posi t i on or

because no posi t i ons wer e avai l abl e.

The di st r i ct cour t excl uded t he st at ement , and Dr .

Sher vi n assai l s t he cour t ' s excl usi onar y r ul i ng. Some f ur t her

f act s ar e needed t o put her assi gnment of er r or i n per spect i ve.

Pr i or t o t r i al , Har var d moved i n l i mi ne t o bar t he

i nt r oduct i on of t hi s evi dence, ar gui ng t hat Dr . McCar t hy' s

st atement was hearsay and t hat i t was not admi ssi bl e as a vi car i ous

admi ssi on si nce Dr . McCar t hy hel d onl y a cl i ni cal associ at e

posi t i on at Har var d and, t hus, Dr . Sher vi n coul d not show t hat any

st at ement s Dr . McCar t hy made r egar di ng hi r i ng at MGH or NWH were

wi t hi n t he scope of hi s Har var d f acul t y appoi nt ment . The di st r i ct

cour t gr ant ed Harvar d' s mot i on. When Dr . Sher vi n br ought t he i ssue

up agai n at t r i al , t he di st r i ct cour t sust ai ned t he def endant s'

obj ecti ons.

Wi t h r espect t o Harvar d, t her e was no hi nt of abuse of

di scr et i on i n excl udi ng Dr . McCar t hy' s st at ement as i nadmi ssi bl e

hear say. The r ecor d i s ber ef t of any evi dence t hat t he st at ement s

f el l wi t hi n t he scope of Dr . McCar t hy' s Har var d f acul t y

appoi nt ment . See, e. g. , Lopez- Rosar i o, 134 F. 3d at 34- 35.


48/66

- 48 -

Swi t chi ng gear s, Dr . Sher vi n suggest s t hat Dr .

McCar t hy' s st at ement was admi ssi bl e agai nst Par t ner s. But even i f

t hi s were so a mat t er on whi ch we take no vi ew t he st at ement

demonst r at ed at most t hat an i ndi vi dual i n a l eader shi p r ol e i n

or t hopedi cs at MGH and NWH was "on t he same page" as Dr . Burke

about a "st af f posi t i on" f or Dr . Sher vi n. 10 What t hat means i s

amorphous. What i s cl ear , however , i s t hat t he st atement does not

show t hat Dr . Sher vi n had a f i r mof f er at NWH. Nor does i t di r ect l y

cont r adi ct Dr . Rubash' s t est i mony t hat t her e wer e no open posi t i ons

at NWH at t hat t i me.

Seen i n t hi s l i ght , t he excl usi on of Dr . McCar t hy' s

st at ement pl ai nl y di d not have "a subst ant i al or i nj ur i ous ef f ect

on t he j ur y' s ver di ct . " Gomez, 344 F. 3d at 118. Any er r or i n

t hi s r egar d was, t her ef or e, har ml ess.

At t he expense of car t i ng coal t o Newcast l e, we add t hat

t he har ml essness of any er r or was ensur ed by t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

10 Whi l e t hi s evi dence al so may have t ended t o bol st er Dr .

Sher vi n' s cont ent i on t hat i nf or mal appl i cat i ons wer e r out i nel yaccept ed at MGH even when no posi t i ons were post ed, t hat poi nt wasmade by other evi dence i nt r oduced by Dr . Sher vi n. The excl usi onof cumul at i ve evi dence i s or di nar i l y har ml ess. See U. S. ex r el .Ondi s v. Ci t y of Woonsocket , 587 F. 3d 49, 60 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Soi t i s here.


49/66

- 49 -

pr ophyl act i c act i ons. When t he cour t r ef used t o al l ow Dr . Bur ke

t o t est i f y about Dr . McCar t hy' s st at ement on t he t went i et h day of

t r i al , i t gave Dr . Sher vi n expl i ci t per mi ssi on t o cal l Dr . McCar t hy

as a wi t ness even t hough f i nal wi t ness l i st s ( whi ch di d not name

Dr . McCart hy) had l ong si nce been submi t t ed. Yet Dr . Sher vi n

el ect ed not t o cal l Dr . McCar t hy bef or e she rest ed on t he twent y-

t hi r d t r i al day. Thi s was a st r at egi c l i t i gat i on choi ce and a

par t y nor mal l y i s bound by such choi ces. Cf . Paul Rever e Var .

Annui t y I ns. Co. v. Zang, 248 F. 3d 1, 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( st at i ng,

i n di f f er ent cont ext , t hat " [ w] her e a par t y makes a consi der ed

choi ce, t hough i t may i nvol ve some cal cul at ed r i sk, he ' cannot be

r el i eved of such a choi ce' " even i f i n hi ndsi ght t he deci si on mi ght

have been i mprovi dent ( quot i ng Ackermann v. Uni t ed St at es, 340

U. S. 193, 198 ( 1950) ) ) .

D.

The shor t of i t i s t hat t he chal l enged evi dent i ar y

r ul i ngs, whet her t aken si ngl y or i n t he aggr egat e, f ur ni sh no

f ounded basi s f or set t i ng asi de t he j ur y ver di ct .

V. JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Dr . Shervi n ser ves up a smorgasbord of cl ai med

i nst r ucti onal er r or s f i ve r el at ed t o i nst r ucti ons actual l y gi ven

and one r el at ed t o a f or gone i nst r uct i on. Al l si x of t hese cl ai ms


50/66

- 50 -

ar e adequat el y pr eserved. We pr ef ace our di scussi on of t hem wi t h

a pr ci s of t he appl i cabl e st andar ds of r evi ew.

A.

The st andar d governi ng an appel l at e cour t ' s r evi ew of a

pr eser ved cl ai m of i nst r uct i onal er r or var i es dependi ng on t he

natur e of t he assert ed er r or . We r evi ew de novo quest i

shervin v. partners healthcare system inc, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents