Mayo Clinic responds to Dr. Joyner lawsuit by saying its employee policies are not binding contracts
Jeff Kiger, Post-Bulletin, Rochester, Minn.
Updated 6 min read
Dec. 20—ROCHESTER — In response to
a lawsuit filed by Dr. Michael Joyner,
Mayo Clinic posits that three of his five claims are invalid because the clinic's Academic Freedom and Anti-Retaliation policies are not binding contracts.
Joyner, an anesthesiologist and physiologist, has worked at Mayo Clinic since 1992 and continues to be employed by Mayo Clinic. He filed a lawsuit in Olmsted County's Third Judicial Court on Nov. 13.
He alleges, among other things, that Mayo Clinic used "punitive" discipline actions against him for
"problematic" statements to the media,
"unprofessional" behavior and what he claims to be retaliation for his role in a 2020 whistleblowing report.
Joyner is requesting a jury trial. He seeks damages in an amount to be established during the trial, and for an order for Mayo Clinic to cease its interference with his style of communication.
Mayo Clinic filed a response to Joyner's claims this week. The filing asks the court to dismiss Joyner's first, second and fifth contract-related claims.
"Dr. Joyner does not allege a traditional contract; he did not have an employment agreement with Mayo Clinic. Rather, Counts I, II and V rest on three Mayo policies/procedures: the Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Policy, Anti Retaliation Policy, and Appeals Procedure. Dr. Joyner asserts the Policies are unilateral contracts, or should be treated as enforceable promises in equity, and alleges that Mayo violated them," Mayo Clinic's attorneys state.
"Those claims fail as a matter of law. With respect to Counts I and II, none of the Policies made a binding offer or promise. Further, even if the Academic Freedom Policy was contractually binding (and it is not), Dr. Joyner alleges that Mayo did what the policy expressly permits — namely, regulate employees' speech — precluding a breach. Likewise, Mayo's Anti-Retaliation Policy explicitly rests on Mayo's own discretionary determinations of whether retaliation has occurred, also precluding proof of breach."
Mayo Clinic's motions to dismiss are scheduled to be heard by Judge Kathy Wallace via video conference on Feb. 9.
The Mayo response painted Joyner's claims that Mayo Clinic violated its own policies as not having legal merit.
"The policies are 'general statements of policy' on their face. Moreover, even if they were contractual (and they are not), Mayo did not breach them," Mayo Clinic's statement says.
Mayo Clinic also asked the court to remove Mayo Clinic CEO Dr. Gianrico Farrugia and Joyner's supervisor, Dr. Carlos Mantilla, from the case, since they are only named as direct defendants in the lawsuit's fifth claim of "Tortious Interferences with Contract."
The heart of this lawsuit is based on Joyner's claim that Mayo Clinic punished him over statements to the media and alleged bullying of co-workers.
On March 5, Joyner's supervisor, Mantilla, sent him a disciplinary letter that cited his use of "idiomatic language" in interviews with CNN and the New York Times. Those were described in the letter as "problematic and reflect(ing) poorly on Mayo Clinic's brand and reputation."
The letter stated that he used an "unpleasant" tone with a "bullying" quality with colleagues. Mantilla also wrote, "Over the years, you have failed to consistently work within Mayo Clinic guidelines related to media interactions." However,
Joyner's performance reviews for the years in question are positive
and do not mention any behavior problems.
Mayo Clinic suspended Joyner for one week without pay in March and withheld a scheduled raise as well as curtailing his availability for media interviews. Joyner appealed his suspension. A committee of Mayo Clinic physician peers upheld the disciplinary action.
While this latest filing by Mayo Clinic responds to three of his claims, it does not address Joyner's third and fourth claims.
His third claim is that Mayo Clinic violated Minnesota's personnel record statute by not providing him with all of the documents in his personnel file, despite repeated requests.
Joyner claims the alleged violation of the personnel record statute caused him to suffer "a diminished professional reputation, a reduction in his ability to advance scientific research and share his research publicly, lost wages and pay increases, and diminished earning capacity in the future, and by causing Joyner substantial emotional distress."
The fourth claim in the lawsuit is that Mayo Clinic violated Minnesota's Whistleblower Act by retaliating against Joyner for reporting that employees of MITRE Corp., a McLean, Virginia-based nonprofit that Mayo Clinic was working with Joyner on convalescent plasma research, tried to illegally access Mayo Clinic patient data in 2020.
In the lawsuit, Joyner described the MITRE situation as occurring during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic, when he was reportedly working "16-20 hours per day, often seven days per week for months" to keep up with his regular work at Mayo Clinic as well as leading research into convalescent plasma as a COVID treatment.
Joyner stated in his lawsuit that his report resulted in a formal complaint against MITRE. Mayo Clinic formally sanctioned MITRE in September 2020. Dr. John Noseworthy, who preceded Farrugia as Mayo Clinic's CEO, is a MITRE board member.
In the wake of Joyner's complaints about MITRE, he claims that Farrugia initiated a "pretextual disciplinary process against him" and a letter of reprimand described Joyner's actions as "unprofessional."
In 2021, Joyner filed an internal retaliation complaint against Farrugia for the 2020 reprimand. That, he said, resulted in an additional reprimand against him for complaining and displaying a "lack of professionalism."
While MITRE did not respond to questions about the incident, the nonprofit did bring Joyner in to speak at a MITRE conference in December 2022 about the military national security implications of his human performance work.
Mayo Clinic has previously refuted Joyner's claims and stated that the 2020 reprimand actually stemmed from Joyner making a demand for more compensation.
"Mayo intends to show that in 2020, in the heart of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Joyner gave Mayo an ultimatum, demanding that Mayo agree to give him a seven-figure payment within 48 hours," wrote Mayo Clinic's Andrea Kalmanovitz.
Joyner's attorney, Kellie Miller of Allen Harris Law, describes Mayo Clinic's "ultimatum" comments as "false allegations." Miller shared an email correspondence between Joyner and Farrugia from June 2021. Joyner described creating "a whole new book of business for Mayo" over a three-month period that generated $54 million and goodwill at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Joyner claimed that Farrugia had asked him to develop a business plan to make the convalescent plasma program into a profitable business for Mayo Clinic. Joyner stated in the complaint that he requested increased compensation for that additional workload.
