Case Law McMillan v. Massachusetts Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty To Animals

McMillan v. Massachusetts Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty To Animals

Document Cited Authorities (59) Cited in (387) Related

Marcus E. Cohn with whom Melissa Bayer Tearney and Peabody & Brown, Boston, MA, were on brief for defendants.

Dahlia C. Rudavsky, Boston, MA, with whom James S. Weliky, Jamaica Plain, MA, and Messing & Rudavsky, P.C. were on brief for plaintiff.

Before STAHL, Circuit Judge, GODBOLD, * Senior Circuit Judge, and CYR, Senior Circuit Judge.

STAHL, Circuit Judge.

In the late 1980s, Dr. Marjorie McMillan, head of the radiology department for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("MSPCA"), learned that she was being paid less than the male heads of the organization's other departments. Defendants MSPCA and Dr. Gus Thornton now appeal the district court's denial of their motion to set aside verdicts in Dr. McMillan's favor on her various pay discrimination claims. They also appeal as excessive the jury's award of compensatory and punitive damages, and the district court's award of attorney's fees. Dr. McMillan cross-appeals the court's grant of judgment as a matter of law on her tortious interference with contractual relations claim against defendant Dr. Paul Gambardella, and its grant of summary judgment on her contract claims against the MSPCA and on her retaliation claim against all three defendants. We affirm the district court's ruling on the pay discrimination, tortious interference, contract, and retaliation claims, and, in part, the jury's compensatory damages verdict; reverse the award of punitive damages and compensatory damages representing lost benefits; and vacate the award of attorney's fees with directions that it be recalculated after remand.

I.

BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

We begin with an overview of general facts and prior proceedings, and leave more detailed recitations to the appropriate contexts.

Defendant MSPCA is a charitable, non-profit organization that combats cruelty to animals through educational programs and veterinary services. It operates Angell Memorial Animal Hospital ("Angell"), whose staff, during the relevant time period, totalled more than 200 employees, including veterinarians, interns, residents in post-graduate veterinary training, and technical and support staff. Defendant Dr. Gus Thornton began working at Angell in 1957, and was its chief of staff from 1966 until 1989, at which time he became president of the MSPCA. Defendant Dr. Paul Gambardella worked as a staff surgeon at Angell from 1975 until 1984, and as the interim director of surgery from 1984 until 1989, when Dr. Thornton appointed him chief of staff.

Plaintiff Dr. Marjorie McMillan was first employed by Angell in 1969 and thereafter was employed in various capacities until she left in 1977 to work in private practice. She returned in 1981 as the director of the radiology department, employed part time. She left Angell again in 1984 to spend one year completing coursework necessary for board certification and returned to Angell in 1985, again as director of radiology on a part-time schedule. From 1987 until 1991, she worked full time as head of radiology. In addition, from 1981 to 1991, she worked approximately seven hours each week at Windhover Bird Clinic ("Windhover"), a part-time private avian practice that she had established in Walpole, Massachusetts.

Until 1988, Angell had seven veterinary departments: clinics, cardiology, intensive care, clinical pathology, pathology, surgery, and radiology. All of the departments were headed by veterinarians, who, in addition to fulfilling their clinical duties, also served as administrative directors of their departments. During this time, Dr. Thornton was responsible for negotiating veterinarians' initial salaries and for setting discretionary annual increases from a fixed amount of funds. Although the department directors were responsible for such tasks as purchasing equipment, training interns and residents, scheduling, and making budget and compensation recommendations to Dr. Thornton, all of the staff reported to Dr. Thornton rather than to the individual directors.

In 1985 Dr. Thornton initiated a plan to restructure Angell's management, giving to the department directors greater responsibility, including the authority to make hiring, firing, compensation, and discipline decisions. As part of the reorganization, Dr. Thornton in 1988 consolidated Angell's seven departments into four departments: radiology, medicine, surgery, and pathology.

Dr. McMillan did not know the salaries of other veterinarians employed by Angell until 1987, when she learned that the salary of a newly-hired radiologist was $38,000. Dr. McMillan, whose salary at that time was $41,000, consulted Dr. Thornton and requested a raise so that her compensation would be comparable to that of the other department heads. Dr. Thornton eventually offered Dr. McMillan a raise to $47,000, which she did not accept because she had been offered a $50,000 salary for a non-administrative veterinary position at Tufts University Veterinary School. Dr. Thornton then agreed to adjust Dr. McMillan's salary to $51,000, effective in January 1988.

In 1989, Dr. McMillan discovered the disparity between her salary and that of the other department heads at Angell when a newspaper published a letter about the MSPCA that listed the various salaries. At the time, her salary was $58,000; her male counterparts in surgery, pathology, and medicine, by contrast, were earning $73,000, $80,244, and $73,199, respectively. On the basis of the salary disparity, Dr. McMillan filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

Also in 1989, Dr. Gambardella, who became chief of staff upon Dr. Thornton's accession to the MSPCA presidency, set out to reevaluate and to improve the level of department heads' compensation. He began by creating job descriptions for each of the department heads in which the list of duties for the head of radiology was substantially the same as those for the other department head positions. He also consulted a study of the salaries at another major animal hospital and an informal market survey, on the basis of which he tentatively suggested to Kathleen Collins, Angell's human resources director, that the heads of radiology and surgery receive $88,000, the head of medicine, $90,000, and the head of pathology, $95,000. Collins then undertook an analysis of the department head jobs in order to "rationalize" the MSPCA's salary structure, giving a range of points in a number of categories of responsibility. On the basis of the point totals, she determined an appropriate salary for each of the department heads. On completion of the analysis, in 1990, Dr. McMillan received a raise from $58,295 to $72,000, which was substantially larger than that received by any of the other department heads. 1

Also in 1990, Dr. McMillan entered into negotiations with Angell over the status of Windhover. Dr. McMillan suggested that Angell acquire her practice or, alternatively, that it rent her space so that she could carry on her bird practice there or that it pay her a separate, additional amount for her treatment of Angell's avian patients. When the negotiations came to an impasse, Dr. McMillan refused to continue to treat birds at Angell, a duty to which she had been devoting approximately six hours per week.

In 1991, Dr. Gambardella began to receive complaints from veterinarians--other department heads and members of the surgery staff, in particular--that Dr. McMillan was uncooperative and had created an atmosphere of animosity and inflexibility in the radiology department. On November 21, 1991, Dr. Gambardella summoned Dr. McMillan as she was preparing to perform a procedure on an anesthetized dog, fired her, gave her fifteen minutes to gather her belongings, and had her escorted out of the hospital. She was told not to return and was thereafter excluded from the premises. Although Angell had adopted in March 1990 a discipline policy directed at the correction of inappropriate behavior and retention of employees whenever possible, Dr. McMillan was given no advance warning of her termination.

On May 21, 1992, Dr. McMillan sued the MSPCA, Dr. Thornton, and Dr. Gambardella, alleging pay discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1; the Equal Pay Act ("EPA"), 29 U.S.C. § 206; and the Massachusetts anti-discrimination statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, and Equal Rights Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 102. The complaint also alleged retaliation in violation of Title VII, the EPA, and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B and ch. 272, §§ 92A and 98; breach of contract and negligent performance of contractual duties against the MSPCA; and tortious interference with contractual relations against Dr. Thornton and Dr. Gambardella. On March 17, 1995, the district court awarded the MSPCA summary judgment on Dr. McMillan's claims for pay discrimination under Title VII and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, § 102, retaliation under state and federal law, breach of contract and negligent performance of contractual duties, and tortious interference with contractual relations against Dr. Thornton. The court also held that damages against the MSPCA were limited to $20,000, pursuant to the Massachusetts charitable immunity law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85K. The court later held that chapter 231 did not apply and granted Dr. McMillan's motion for reconsideration of the limitation on damages.

In December 1995, plain...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico – 2020
Colon v. Colomer
"...here, there is more than just stray workplace remarks. See Velazquez-Garcia, 473 F.3d at 18; McMillan v. Mass. Soc'y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 300-01 (1st Cir. 1998) ("stray remarks may properly constitute evidence of discriminatory intent for the jury to consider ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico – 2015
Cosme-Perez v. Municipality of Juana Diaz
"...inference.' " See LeBlanc v. Great American Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 847 (1st Cir.1993) ; see also McMillan v. Mass. Soc'y. for Prev. of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 303 n. 10 (1st Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1104, 119 S.Ct. 870, 142 L.Ed.2d 772 (1999).Constructive Discharge Plainti..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico – 1999
Cruz v. McAllister Bros., Inc.
"...motive, the record should be analyzed with the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test. See McMillan v. Mass. Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 309 (1st Cir.1998). In reviewing an ADA retaliation claim, a court may find guidance in Title VII retaliation claims. So..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico – 1999
Mandavilli v. Maldonado
"...though they carry less probative value than statistics in a disparate impact case. See McMillan v. Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 304 (1st Cir.1998); LeBlanc v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 848 (1st Cir.1993); Cumpiano v. Banco Santander P.R..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts – 1998
Guckenberger v. Boston University
"...a string of recent reversals of district court decisions on fee applications. See, e.g., McMillan v. Massachusetts Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 310-11 (1st Cir.1998); Rodriguez-Hernandez v. Miranda-Velez, 132 F.3d 848, 858-60 (1st Cir.1998); Coutin, 124 F.3d..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
5 books and journal articles
Document | Employment Evidence – 2022
Statistical Evidence
"...and have both experts’ opinions submitted to the trier of fact. McMillian v. Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Animal Cruelty , 140 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 1998), rehearing, en banc, denied, 1998 U.S. App LEXIS 22586 (1st. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1104 (1999). 6. Use performa..."
Document | Employment Evidence – 2022
Testimonial Evidence
"...“not so one-sided such that it did not act within its discretion.” McMillan v. Massachusetts Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 1998). In a pay discrimination case, Plaintiff gave testimony that the company CFO made graphic comments about his dating and sex..."
Document | Federal Employment Jury Instructions - Volume I – 2014
Gender discrimination and sexual harassment
"...it in reaching a verdict. Comments Source of Instruction: McMillan v. Massachusetts Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals , 140 F.3d 288, 301 n.8 (1st Cir. 1998). 2. Statistical Evidence §1:1070 Consideration of Statistics as Evidence Statistics are one form of evidence from which ..."
Document | Federal Employment Jury Instructions - Volume I – 2014
Religious discrimination
"...you would disregard it in reaching a verdict. Comments Source of Instruction: McMillan v. Mass. Soc’y, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals , 140 F.3d 288, 301 n.8 (1st Cir. 1998) (sex discrimination case). Practice Tip: Watch for this type of instruction if entitled “Stray Remarks in the Workp..."
Document | Vol. 21 Núm. 2, July 2021 – 2021
BLIND LEADING THE BLIND: A CASE FOR A LEGALLY CONSCIOUS, ANONYMOUS EMPLOYMENT APP.
"...percent of employees would be at-will or contracted employees). (32) See McMillan v. Mass. Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 296 (1st. Cir. 1998) (holding that the veterinarian organization engaged in discrimination when it knowingly payed female department head ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 books and journal articles
Document | Employment Evidence – 2022
Statistical Evidence
"...and have both experts’ opinions submitted to the trier of fact. McMillian v. Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Animal Cruelty , 140 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 1998), rehearing, en banc, denied, 1998 U.S. App LEXIS 22586 (1st. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1104 (1999). 6. Use performa..."
Document | Employment Evidence – 2022
Testimonial Evidence
"...“not so one-sided such that it did not act within its discretion.” McMillan v. Massachusetts Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 1998). In a pay discrimination case, Plaintiff gave testimony that the company CFO made graphic comments about his dating and sex..."
Document | Federal Employment Jury Instructions - Volume I – 2014
Gender discrimination and sexual harassment
"...it in reaching a verdict. Comments Source of Instruction: McMillan v. Massachusetts Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals , 140 F.3d 288, 301 n.8 (1st Cir. 1998). 2. Statistical Evidence §1:1070 Consideration of Statistics as Evidence Statistics are one form of evidence from which ..."
Document | Federal Employment Jury Instructions - Volume I – 2014
Religious discrimination
"...you would disregard it in reaching a verdict. Comments Source of Instruction: McMillan v. Mass. Soc’y, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals , 140 F.3d 288, 301 n.8 (1st Cir. 1998) (sex discrimination case). Practice Tip: Watch for this type of instruction if entitled “Stray Remarks in the Workp..."
Document | Vol. 21 Núm. 2, July 2021 – 2021
BLIND LEADING THE BLIND: A CASE FOR A LEGALLY CONSCIOUS, ANONYMOUS EMPLOYMENT APP.
"...percent of employees would be at-will or contracted employees). (32) See McMillan v. Mass. Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 296 (1st. Cir. 1998) (holding that the veterinarian organization engaged in discrimination when it knowingly payed female department head ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico – 2020
Colon v. Colomer
"...here, there is more than just stray workplace remarks. See Velazquez-Garcia, 473 F.3d at 18; McMillan v. Mass. Soc'y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 300-01 (1st Cir. 1998) ("stray remarks may properly constitute evidence of discriminatory intent for the jury to consider ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico – 2015
Cosme-Perez v. Municipality of Juana Diaz
"...inference.' " See LeBlanc v. Great American Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 847 (1st Cir.1993) ; see also McMillan v. Mass. Soc'y. for Prev. of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 303 n. 10 (1st Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1104, 119 S.Ct. 870, 142 L.Ed.2d 772 (1999).Constructive Discharge Plainti..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico – 1999
Cruz v. McAllister Bros., Inc.
"...motive, the record should be analyzed with the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test. See McMillan v. Mass. Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 309 (1st Cir.1998). In reviewing an ADA retaliation claim, a court may find guidance in Title VII retaliation claims. So..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico – 1999
Mandavilli v. Maldonado
"...though they carry less probative value than statistics in a disparate impact case. See McMillan v. Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 304 (1st Cir.1998); LeBlanc v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 848 (1st Cir.1993); Cumpiano v. Banco Santander P.R..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts – 1998
Guckenberger v. Boston University
"...a string of recent reversals of district court decisions on fee applications. See, e.g., McMillan v. Massachusetts Soc'y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 310-11 (1st Cir.1998); Rodriguez-Hernandez v. Miranda-Velez, 132 F.3d 848, 858-60 (1st Cir.1998); Coutin, 124 F.3d..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex