Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA


1:18-cv-00461

MICHAEL SHAUGHNESSY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) AMENDED COMPLAINT
v. )
)
DUKE UNIVERSITY, PRIVATE )
DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC, PLLC, )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
)

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Dr. Michael Shaughnessy was an exemplary physician and anesthesiologist at Duke University

whose seven-year career at Duke was cut short in retaliation and discrimination against his

complaints about disability and sex discrimination in Duke’s Anesthesiology Department. Dr.

Shaughnessy consistently earned high performance ratings and professional accolades

throughout his years at Duke. However, in mid- to late 2016, following the tragic suicide of a

resident physician within Duke’s Anesthesiology Department, Dr. Shaughnessy and others

complained about the insensitive response and stubborn refusal to support those with mental

health disabilities, and, additionally, the sex discrimination leveled against many female

physicians in the Anesthesiology Department by its Chair, Dr. Joseph Mathew, and other

members of the faculty management, including Vice Chair Dr. Gavin Martin. In response to Dr.

Shaughnessy’s engagement in protected activity, Duke refused to renew Dr. Shaughnessy’s

contract, and, in so doing, Duke breached from numerous material terms and procedural

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 1 of 33


requirements encompassed within its contract with Dr. Shaughnessy, including Duke’s

contractual promise (1) that Dr. Shaughnessy’s contract would be renewed on a continuing

annual basis, subject to satisfactory annual performance and programmatic needs; (2) that Dr.

Shaughnessy was able to act and speak without institutional censorship or discipline, and (3) that

Duke would abide by a fair and transparent process for contract renewal determinations as set

forth in the Duke University Faculty Handbook, inter alia. Moreover, following Duke’s decision

to end Dr. Shaughnessy’s employment, Duke blocked his employment with other healthcare

institutions and hospitals including UNC, the Durham VA, and Duke Regional Hospital. This is

a civil rights lawsuit seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, inter alia, for the willful

discrimination and retaliation perpetrated by Defendants in violation of the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., the ADA Amendments Act of

2008 (“ADAAA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3, and against

the Defendants for breach of contract and torts committed under the common law of the State of

North Carolina.

THE PARTIES

1. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff Michael Shaughnessy, M.D., has been a

citizen and resident of Wake County, North Carolina. Dr. Shaughnessy was an "employee" of

Defendant within the meaning of the common law and within the definition of the ADA, 42

U.S.C. § 12112, et seq. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Dr. Shaughnessy was a person

with a disability under the ADA and ADAAA.

2. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Duke University (“Duke”) has been a non-

profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina with

its principal place of business at 310 Blackwell Street, Fourth Floor, Durham, North Carolina

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 2 of 33


27701. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Duke did business in the State of North

Carolina and was the employer of Dr. Shaughnessy within the meaning of the common law of

the State of North Carolina and in accord with the definition of “employer” under the ADA.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, Duke regularly employed more than 500 employees.

3. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Private Diagnostic Clinic, PLLC (“PDC”),

has been a professional limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the

State of North Carolina with its registered office on Trent Drive in Durham, North Carolina

27710. At all times relevant to this Complaint, PDC did business in the State of North

Carolina and was the employer of Dr. Shaughnessy within the meaning of the common law of

the State of North Carolina, and in accord with the definition of “employer” under the ADA.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, PDC regularly employed more than 500 employees.

PDC is a company affiliated with Duke and controlled by Duke. Hereinafter, references to

“Duke” shall encompass both Duke and PDC unless otherwise specified.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331

as certain of Dr. Shaughnessy’s causes of action arise under the laws of the United States.

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the subject matter of Dr. Shaughnessy’s claims

arising under the laws of the State of North Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 as such

claims form the same case or controversy as those claims arising under the laws of the United

States.

5. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina

under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2), inasmuch as Duke resides within this judicial district

and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the following claims occurred

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 3 of 33


within this judicial district.

FACTS

6. Dr. Shaughnessy is an anesthesiologist and physician licensed to practice medicine in the

State of North Carolina. Dr. Shaughnessy holds an undergraduate degree from Princeton

University and earned his medical degree from Duke University Medical School in 2006. Dr.

Shaughnessy performed his residency in Anesthesiology at Massachusetts General Hospital

until 2010. Dr. Shaughnessy obtained fellowship training at Duke, serving as a faculty fellow

in Regional and Ambulatory Anesthesiology from 2010-2011. Dr. Shaughnessy has long-

standing ties to Duke: he was born in Duke University Hospital, grew up in Durham, North

Carolina, on and around Duke’s campus, and his father remains a tenured full professor at

Duke.

Dr. Shaughnessy’s Contracts with Duke

7. On or about April 13, 2011, Dr. Shaughnessy was presented with an offer letter (“Offer

Letter”), offering Dr. Shaughnessy an appointment as a full-time faculty member in Duke’s

Department of Anesthesiology (hereinafter “the Department”) housed within the Duke School

of Medicine. The Offer Letter provided that, if he accepted the same, Dr. Shaughnessy would

be hired into a regular non-tenure track faculty position in the Department as Assistant

Professor, Track IV.

8. The Offer Letter required that, as part of the proposed contract, Dr. Shaughnessy was required

to “execute the PDC Operating Agreement and related documents[,]” which were presented to

Dr. Shaughnessy along with the Offer Letter. The related documents included a document

entitled “Exhibit A”, setting forth specific information regarding Dr. Shaughnessy’s

compensation, as well as a schedule of “Terms and Conditions” (hereinafter “Terms and

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 4 of 33


Conditions Schedule”), setting forth additional material terms of the proposed contract.

9. Moreover, the Offer Letter “summarized” an enumerated list of “[d]etails of the offer . . .”,

which represented additional material elements of the proposed contract between the parties.

Included within the details section, the Offer Letter incorporated by reference the

aforementioned Terms and Conditions Schedule, which the Offer Letter identified as being

attached thereto.

10. The Terms and Conditions Schedule, attached to the Offer Letter and incorporated by

reference therein, established a number of material terms of Dr. Shaughnessy’s employment

with Duke, which represented a proposed binding contract between the parties, including:

a. Dr. Shaughnessy’s “Appointment Term” was described as follows: “Your

appointment will be renewed on a continuing annual basis, subject to satisfactory

annual performance and programmatic needs.” Accordingly, Duke offered Dr.

Shaughnessy a contract which was to be continually renewed, but provided Duke the

option not to do so, if Duke determined that Dr. Shaughnessy did not establish

satisfactory annual performance or if Duke’s programmatic needs precluded the need

for Dr. Shaughnessy’s continued employment; and

b. The Terms and Conditions Schedule further provided that the Duke Faculty

Handbook (“DFH”), including any amendments thereto, was a material component of

Dr. Shaughnessy’s contract with Duke. The Terms and Conditions Schedule

established that he was subject to the same DFH and included a Uniform Resource

Locater (“URL”), which navigated to a webpage where a copy of the same DFH

could be found. Accordingly, Duke established that the policies set forth in the DFH,

as amended from time to time, were material terms in its contract with Dr.

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 5 of 33


Shaughnessy.

11. The Offer Letter was drafted by Duke and bore the name of Dr. Mark Newman, then

Chair of the Department of Anesthesiology, acting as an authorized agent on behalf of Duke

in extending the aforementioned offer.

12. On or about May 3, 2011, under the text of the Offer Letter which stated, “I accept this

offer . . . [,]” Dr. Shaughnessy signed and dated the Offer Letter, manifesting his assent to the

same and with the intention that the Offer Letter and related documents, including Exhibit A

and the Terms and Conditions Schedule, would become a binding contract between the

himself and Duke.

13. Prior to affixing his signature, Dr. Shaughnessy made handwritten notations in both the

Offer Letter and the Terms and Conditions Schedule attached thereto, which represented

proposed modifications to the contract. Dr. Shaughnessy affixed his initials to the same to

identify his assent to those documents, as amended by his notations. Namely, Dr.

Shaughnessy’s proposed modifications amended the following:

a. Under details section of the Offer Letter, Dr. Shaughnessy added an additional

paragraph, numbered by Dr. Shaughnessy as paragraph nine, to clarify that the

housing assistance referenced in Exhibit A was incorporated into the Offer Letter by

reference. Dr. Shaughnessy affixed his initials to the Offer Letter; and

b. Under the Terms and Conditions Schedule, Dr. Shaughnessy added a caveat that a

non-compete agreement required by the Terms & Conditions Schedule would be

“mutually agreed upon.” Dr. Shaughnessy affixed his initials to the Terms and

Conditions Schedule.

14. Dr. Shaughnessy returned a copy of the same Offer Letter, Exhibit A, and Terms and

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 6 of 33


Conditions Schedule to the designated individual at Duke according to the terms of the

contract.

15. Duke accepted Dr. Shaughnessy’s signed Offer Letter and Terms and Conditions

Schedule, and assented to the modifications he made therein. Accordingly, the Offer Letter

and the Terms and Conditions Schedule became a binding and enforceable contract between

the parties.

16. Dr. Shaughnessy fully complied with the obligations he assumed in his contract with

Duke throughout his period of employment.

17. Moreover, Dr. Shaughnessy maintained satisfactory annual performance throughout the

duration of his employment with Duke.

18. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Duke did not experience a change in

programmatic needs such that it precluded Dr. Shaughnessy’s continued employment.

19. Although Dr. Shaughnessy worked under contract with Duke, he was also simultaneously

employed with PDC as an at-will employee of the same until his wrongful termination on or

about June 30, 2017.

20. Dr. Shaughnessy’s Track IV classification designated him as a regular, non-tenure track

faculty member within Duke’s School of Medicine, entitling him to the benefits accorded that

rank within the DFH.

21. Under the DFH, the terms of which were expressly incorporated into Dr. Shaughnessy’s

contract with Duke, as described above, Dr. Shaughnessy was entitled to certain rights

respecting his employment relationship with Duke. These rights included those stated in

Appendix C of the DFH, which in relevant part defines itself as “embody[ing] and agreement

between the president and the faculty as to policies and procedures with respect to academic

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 7 of 33


freedom, academic tenure, and certain matters of due process.” The relevant promises made

by Duke and applicable to Dr. Shaughnessy include, inter alia:

a. Appendix C provided Duke’s promise to its faculty that they will be afforded

academic freedom in their employment with the same. Namely, Duke promised that

Duke faculty have academic freedom “[t]o act and to speak in his or her capacity as a

citizen without institutional censorship or discipline”; and

b. Appendix C provided that Dr. Shaughnessy was entitled to a system of due process

surrounding the decision to offer reappointment of his contract, including (1) the

establishment of an objective criteria for reviewing Dr. Shaughnessy’s candidacy for

reappointment (i.e., the rubric by which satisfactory performance would be

measured); (2) providing Dr. Shaughnessy with access to the aforementioned criteria;

(3) review of Dr. Shaughnessy’s performance against the aforementioned criteria by a

review committee of at least three faculty members not including the Chair of the

Department unless approved by the Dean of the School of Medicine; (4) that the

review committee would prepare a dossier of Dr. Shaughnessy’ curriculum vitae and

relevant documents and develop a written report to the Department regarding Dr.

Shaughnessy; and (5) the decision to reappoint Dr. Shaughnessy was to be made by

secret ballot at a meeting of the Department, and that the Chair was not permitted to

vote except in the case of a tie; inter alia.

22. Duke promulgated the Duke Faculty Handbook in order to represent the various benefits

and obligations existing between Duke and its faculty in their employment relationship, inter

alia.

23. Included in the benefits set out in the Duke Faculty Handbook, Duke promised its faculty

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 8 of 33


that it would provide and protect certain rights with respect to faculty employment with Duke,

including the rights to academic freedom and due process in reappointment decisions

described in Paragraph 21.

24. Duke promulgated the Duke Faculty Handbook with knowledge that Duke faculty would

take Duke at its word and would rely upon Duke’s representations that those benefits would

be provided to Duke faculty as stated therein.

25. At the time Duke promulgated the Duke Faculty Handbook, it was reasonably

foreseeable to Duke that Duke faculty would take Duke at its word and would rely upon

Duke’s representations that those benefits would be provided to Duke faculty as stated

therein.

26. Duke promulgated the Duke Faculty Handbook with the intention that Duke would be

bound by the promises it made to its faculty therein, including the intention to be bound by its

commitment to provide academic freedom to Duke faculty and to due process in

reappointment decisions described in Paragraph 21.

27. Following Dr. Shaughnessy’s initial contract with Duke, Duke continually renewed the

same contract, carrying forward the previously agreed-upon material terms identified above

until Chair Mathew improperly terminated Dr. Shaughnessy’s contract in January 2017.

Dr. Shaughnessy’s Performance and Accomplishments at Duke

28. Throughout his employment with Duke, Dr. Shaughnessy maintained an exemplary

record of performance in his provision of care to patients and developed an excellent

relationship with medical students, residents, fellows, CRNA’s, attending surgeons and

consultants, nurses, anesthesia technicians and staff within Duke University Hospital.

29. In early 2017, Dr. Shaughnessy was nominated by formal letter by at least five of his

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 9 of 33


faculty peers, including four attending surgeons and an attending anesthesiologist in his

Department, to receive a professionalism award by the Duke School of Medicine for his

actions as a physician and member of the Duke medical community. These letters detailed Dr.

Shaughnessy’s tireless patient advocacy as well as his excellent clinical skills and rapport

with his colleagues. Moreover, upon information and belief, one or more letters detailed Dr.

Shaughnessy’s commitment to, and exemplary teaching of, numerous 18-Delta Special Forces

Medics rotating through Duke as part of their Medical Proficiency Training (MPT) in support

of the United States Armed Forces’ efforts to improve battlefield medicine. As a result of the

strength of these nominations, Dr. Shaughnessy was recognized by the Dean of Faculty as a

“Distinguished Nominee” in the program of the 2017 Duke Annual Spring Faculty Meeting.

30. Moreover, on or about March 9, 2017, Dr. Shaughnessy was elected by secret ballot to

serve a two-year term as a member of Duke’s Academic Council at Duke. Dr. Shaughnessy

received numerous votes from Duke faculty colleagues across Duke Medical Center to obtain

this position. The Academic Council is a prestigious body and the chief instrument of faculty

governance at Duke.

31. Dr. Shaughnessy received raises in each of the six years he worked at Duke along with

elevated levels of responsibility. Up until December 2016, Dr. Shaughnessy’s performance

had been semi-annually rewarded by the payment of substantial profit-sharing bonuses

(known as “gain share”) distributed to him through PDC.

32. During Dr. Shaughnessy’s employment with Duke, he spent approximately 80 percent of

his working time attending to clinical responsibilities and devoted the remaining 20 percent of

his time to research, training, and education of medical students and residents.

10

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 10 of 33


Disability and Sex Discrimination at Duke

33. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Dr. Shaughnessy has been a person with a

disability. Namely, Dr. Shaughnessy has suffered from a congenital complete heart block that

has required the implantation of a permanent cardiac pacemaker to treat the same disability. In

addition, Dr. Shaughnessy has had a history of major depression as well as rosacea (causing a

reddening of the skin). Dr. Shaughnessy has received intensive Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

(CBT)-based counseling and medication to treat his depression. Dr. Shaughnessy’s rosacea

has required specialized medication management and laser treatments to control symptoms.

He has received all of his medical care for these conditions at Duke.

34. When he began his faculty position, Dr. Shaughnessy requested an accommodation for

his congenital heart block from Duke. This became of specific importance in 2013 with the

opening of new operating rooms (hereinafter “OR”) containing MRI scanners. Dr.

Shaughnessy reinforced written notification of this accommodation numerous times between

2013 and 2014. Specifically, then-Vice Chair Dr. Holly Muir and Dr. Gavin Martin granted

Dr. Shaughnessy’s request not to work on cases involving the use of Magnetic Residence

Imaging (MRI) machinery both in the OR and offsite due to the potential that machine has to

interfere with the normal operation of his pacemaker which would be life-threatening to him.

35. During Dr. Shaughnessy’s employment with Duke, the Chair of the Department, Dr.

Joseph Mathew (male, no known disability) (hereinafter “Chair Mathew”), in addition to

other members of the Department’s leadership including Division Chief Dr. Jeffrey Gadsden

(male, no known disability), and Vice Chair Dr. Gavin Martin (male, no known disability),

were aware of Dr. Shaughnessy’s disability, his history of disability, and its treatment. Dr.

Shaughnessy was regarded by the foregoing as having a disability.

11

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 11 of 33


36. During Dr. Shaughnessy’s employment, following Chair Mathew’s accession to the role

of interim Chair of the Department in 2014, Dr. Shaughnessy observed Chair Mathew’s

repeated harassment and discrimination against women and people with disabilities.

37. For example, Chair Mathew discriminated and retaliated against a member of the

Department, Dr. Cheryl Jones. Dr. Jones was an outspoken advocate for the rights of women

and the disabled and was herself a person with a disability. Namely, Dr. Jones suffered from

depression. In September 2015, a female employee was assaulted by a male at Duke

University Hospital and found beaten and unconscious in a bathroom. Chair Mathew

downplayed the incident because he believed that because the woman was not sexually

assaulted, the incident was not serious. Female members of the Hospital staff, including Dr.

Jones, wrote emails to Chair Mathew about the need to make female employees of the

Hospital aware of the assault because the assailant had not been captured. Upon information

and belief, Chair Mathew reprimanded Dr. Jones for participating in a warning to female

employees about the assault. After this incident, Chair Mathew stripped Dr. Jones of her

administrative assistant, Bridgette White. Less than a year later after this incident, Dr. Jones

would be forced out of Duke by Chair Mathew.

38. Moreover, numerous other female physicians have experienced hostile and harassing

behaviors from Chair Mathew and have been pushed out of their positions at Duke by the

same.

39. In May or June 2016, a female anesthesiology resident at Duke who had a disability

committed suicide (hereinafter “the Resident”). The Resident had been exhibiting symptoms

of depression during her stressful second year of residency.

40. Following the Resident’s tragic death, Duke faculty were greatly shaken and upset. Chair

12

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 12 of 33


Mathew called a faculty meeting to discuss his position that Duke had done nothing wrong in

the events leading up to the Resident’s death. Dr. Jones complained in that meeting that Duke

was being insensitive by focusing on its own liability for the Resident’s death rather than

critically assessing how it can prevent future tragedies stemming from depression. Dr. Jones

advocated for talking with others who may be exhibiting signs of depression and related her

own experience with depression. Dr. Jones said that as a Department, Duke had failed in its

obligation to offer help to the Resident. Chair Mathew warned the faculty in this meeting that

they should not discuss these events at all because of his concern about the Department’s legal

liability. Chair Mathew appeared very angry at Dr. Jones’ comments.

41. Thereafter, Dr. Jones got together with a group of residents in order to offer support in

the aftermath of the Resident’s suicide. When Chair Mathew learned of this, he held another

faculty meeting and declared that the Department’s faculty were not permitted to gather with

residents without the approval of the Residency Program Director. Dr. Jones was also

prohibited from organizing a candlelight vigil to mourn the Resident’s death.

42. After Dr. Jones was blocked from organizing a candlelight vigil, she purchased a series of

books entitled Physician Suicide Letters Answered, written by the renowned physician and

scholar, Pamela Wible, M.D. Dr. Jones attempted to charge this purchase to her faculty

discretionary spending account (hereinafter “FDA Account”) provided to her by Duke.

However, she was denied the use of the account to pay for the books. She had never before

been denied use of her discretionary account. Nonetheless, Dr. Jones purchased these books

with her own funds and placed them on a shelf in the Obstetric Anesthesia work room.

43. Upon information and belief, acting upon the orders of Chair Mathew, Executive Vice

Chair Dr. Sol Aronson, and Division Chief Ashraf Habib met with Dr. Jones in Dr. Habib’s

13

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 13 of 33


office and told her that she was not allowed to distribute the books to residents. In that

meeting, Dr. Aronson harangued Dr. Jones for placing the books in the Obstetric Anesthesia

work room and as Dr. Jones attempted to leave the office, Dr. Aronson positioned himself in

the doorway and physically blocked Dr. Jones from leaving.

44. Following this incident, Dr. Jones sent an email to the entire Department relating what

had occurred with the books and Dr. Aronson’s aggressive behavior in detaining her in Dr.

Habib’s office against her will.

Dr. Shaughnessy’s Exercise of Protected Activity and Subsequent Retaliation

45. Dr. Shaughnessy read the email from Dr. Jones and became very concerned by the

apparent mistreatment of Dr. Jones and the discriminatory behavior evidenced by Duke

against those with a disability. On or about early August 2016, Dr. Shaughnessy met

individually with former Vice Chair and Division Chief Dr. Richard Moon, then-Division

Chief for General/Vascular/Transplant Dr. Tim Miller, and then-Division Chief Gavin Martin.

Dr. Shaughnessy stated to each of these individuals that based upon the email from Dr. Jones,

what he had witnessed from Chair Mathew in the faculty meeting following the Resident’s

death, Dr. Jones’ complaints in that same meeting, and the aggressive and hostile response to

her attempts to provide literature that may be helpful to those suffering from depression, Dr.

Shaughnessy had serious concerns about Duke’s mistreatment of Dr. Jones and hostility

towards those suffering from depression. During the conversations with those three

individuals, Dr. Shaughnessy referenced his own struggle with depression and requested that

Drs. Moon, Miller and Martin relay and echo his concerns to Chair Mathew about Dr. Jones’

mistreatment and encouraged them as mentors and administrators to likewise complain about

the overall response to the Resident’s suicide stemming from her disability. Upon information

14

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 14 of 33


and belief, on or about early August 2016, Dr. Miller and Dr. Moon, complained to Chair

Mathew about the foregoing events.

46. A few weeks later, in August 2016, Dr. Jones went out on disability leave and then

subsequently ended her employment with Duke by resignation. Upon information and belief,

the harassment and retaliation she had received from Chair Mathew and Dr. Aronson caused

her to feel compelled to resign her faculty position while on leave on or about October 2016.

47. On or about October 19, 2016, Chair Mathew then called a meeting with Dr.

Shaughnessy’s division in order to discuss “recent departmental events”, such as the

Resident’s suicide, the email sent by Dr. Jones, and the events leading to Dr. Jones’

resignation. Chair Mathew announced that he wished to have this meeting ahead of resident

application season so that everyone was “on the same page” regarding how to behave towards

resident applicants. In this meeting, Chair Mathew expressed his disdain for Dr. Jones and her

disability and attributed her actions to mental illness. Chair Mathew then instructed those

present to inform applicants for the residence program that the Resident had committed

suicide because she had a drug problem. Chair Mathew did not want any discussion about the

Resident’s depression.

48. In this meeting, Dr. Shaughnessy objected to Chair Mathew’s instruction to characterize

the Resident’s death as attributable to drugs. Dr. Shaughnessy stated that the Resident clearly

had a disability and to besmirch her death by saying it was attributable to drugs was

inappropriate. Dr. Shaughnessy then referenced his own struggle with depression. Dr.

Shaughnessy asked Chair Mathew whether there would be consequences for Dr. Aronson’s

threatening behavior towards Dr. Jones when he met with her to discuss the books in Dr.

Habib’s office. Chair Mathew responded that despite exercising poor judgement in that

15

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 15 of 33


meeting, Dr. Aronson was a very important member of the Department and accordingly

would not be reprimanded and that Dr. Aronson was considering suing Dr. Jones for her

statements.

49. Dr. Shaughnessy stated to Chair Mathew that Dr. Jones was a valuable member of

Duke’s faculty and the Department needed to accommodate Dr. Jones and help her work

through her disability. Chair Mathew stated that Dr. Jones has a mental illness. Dr.

Shaughnessy responded that the Department should explore how to find a way for Dr. Jones

to return from her medical leave by determining whether accommodations are available. Chair

Mathew snapped at Dr. Shaughnessy, stating, “She will never want to come back.” Chair

Mathew appeared angry at him for voicing his complaints about Dr. Jones.

50. Shortly following the October 19, 2016 meeting, Chair Mathew confronted Dr.

Shaughnessy and said that he believed Dr. Shaughnessy was not happy with his presentations

and about the instructions he had given. Dr. Shaughnessy complained to Chair Mathew about

his treatment of Dr. Jones. Chair Mathew responded dismissively that Cheryl Jones was

simply wrong and she should have known better than to act the way she did.

51. A few weeks later, in late October or early November 2016, Vice Chair Martin

confronted Dr. Shaughnessy and threatened him, warning that he should not, “rile up the

troops,” and telling Dr. Shaughnessy that he seemed unhappy. Vice Chair Martin warned that

Chair Mathew might see to it that Dr. Shaughnessy’s contract might not be renewed.

52. During this time period, with prior permission from then-Vice Chair Dr. Holly Muir and

then-Division Chief Martin obtained on or around August 29, 2016, Dr. Shaughnessy had

been seeking an internal practice transition to Duke Regional Hospital and to enter into a

contract of employment with Regional Anesthesia, PLLC (“Regional Anesthesia”). Regional

16

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 16 of 33


Anesthesia holds a contract with Duke to perform anesthesia services at Duke Regional

Hospital in addition to other Duke-affiliated and unaffiliated locations in the Triangle area.

Physicians at Regional Anesthesia have identical, continuing appointments on the Duke

faculty and there is a close relationship between Regional Anesthesia and Duke. In fact,

Regional Anesthesia is considered the Community Division of the Department with Dr. Eddie

Sanders as the Division Chief. Upon information and belief, Regional Anesthesia is also

wholly owned by the PDC.

53. In late 2016 and early 2017, Dr. Sanders repeatedly represented to Dr. Shaughnessy that

he intended to hire Dr. Shaughnessy in 2017.

54. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Chair Mathew had veto power over the hiring of

doctors at Regional Anesthesia as well as power over faculty appointments.

55. On or about November 18, 2016, Dr. Shaughnessy was called into a meeting with Vice

Chair Martin and newly-designated Division Chief Gadsden to discuss Dr. Shaughnessy’s

transition to Regional Anesthesia. At this meeting, Vice Chair Martin informed Dr.

Shaughnessy that he was an “outstanding anesthesiologist” and that “[Dr. Shaughnessy] [was]

very bright” and thus could “read between the lines.” Dr. Shaughnessy was then admonished

that he should not be outspoken against Chair Mathew with regards to Dr. Jones, Chair

Mathew’s directives regarding communications to the resident applicants about the Resident,

or any other matter. Dr. Shaughnessy was told that Chair Mathew was very upset with him.

56. Moreover, in this meeting, Dr. Shaughnessy was informed by Vice Chair Martin that, in

response to Dr. Shaughnessy’s email inquiry about compensation and benefits during the

transition to Regional Anesthesia, Chair Mathew had decided he would refuse to provide Dr.

Shaughnessy with the gain share. Upon information and belief, Chair Mathew’s refusal to

17

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 17 of 33


provide the gain share was due to his displeasure with Dr. Shaughnessy’s recent complaints.

Vice Chair Martin also informed Dr. Shaughnessy that Chair Mathew had stipulated that he

would have to resign his faculty appointment in order to make the transition. Dr.

Shaughnessy complained to Vice Chair Martin and Division Chief Gadsden that these

requirements were unnecessary, not based on any established policy at Duke, and unfair to Dr.

Shaughnessy.

57. Dr. Shaughnessy was then told by Vice Chair Martin that if he caused further issues for

the Department, Dr. Shaughnessy could count on sabotaged letters of reference, punishment

through a diminution in his gain share to be paid in December 2016, and blacklisting at Duke

Regional as well as at the University of North Carolina (UNC) or the Durham Veteran’s

Affairs Medical Center (hereinafter “the VA”). Vice Chair Martin warned how “small of a

world” the anesthesiology business is in this area. Dr. Shaughnessy responded that he was

deeply concerned by these statements and that he felt they were directly retaliatory for

speaking up in the divisional meeting on October 19, 2016.

58. On or about December 9, 2016, Dr. Shaughnessy had a telephone conversation with

Division Chief Gadsden in which Dr. Shaughnessy requested fair treatment from him.

Division Chief Gadsden had recently attained the position of Division Chief and, because

Division Chief Gadsden been away at the October 19, 2016 meeting and had remained largely

silent during the November 18, 2016 meeting, Dr. Shaughnessy informed Division Chief

Gadsden of the comments and specific objections he had made to Chair Mathew about Chair

Mathew’s offensive characterizations of the Resident and Dr. Jones, as well as Dr. Aronson’s

behavior toward Dr. Jones. Division Chief Gadsden expressed that he held similar concerns

about Chair Mathew and Dr. Aronson, reminding Dr. Shaughnessy that, “Joe isn’t the Chair I

18

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 18 of 33


came to work for” and that allowing Dr. Aronson to meet with Dr. Jones like that was akin to

“putting a bull in a china shop.” Division Chief Gadsden expressed his agreement with Dr.

Shaughnessy’s points about the Resident and Dr. Jones, but warned him that Chair Mathew

seemed “out to get him” and to “be careful.” The following evening, on December 10, 2016,

Dr. Shaughnessy attended the Divisional Holiday Party at Division Chief Gadsden’s

residence. At that party, Division Chief Gadsden warmly welcomed Dr. Shaughnessy, but

later privately told him to “watch your back, I think they are coming after you for what you

said.”

59. On or about January 6, 2017, Dr. Shaughnessy was called into a meeting with Chair

Mathew, Vice Chair Martin, and Division Chief Gadsden. In this meeting, Dr. Shaughnessy

was informed that his contract with Duke would not be renewed and they were providing the

180 days’ notice required under the terms of the faculty handbook. Chair Mathew stated that

Dr. Shaughnessy was “not a good fit” and that if Dr. Shaughnessy forced the Department to

provide the underlying reasons for his discharge, then Chair Mathew would not support Dr.

Shaughnessy’s candidacy for a position at Duke Regional. Chair Mathew conceded that Dr.

Shaughnessy was a great clinician.

60. Chair Mathew and Vice Chair Martin also informed Dr. Shaughnessy that they may

permit him to seek employment at UNC, but they did not have to do that, indicating that they

would not allow Dr. Shaughnessy to obtain a job at UNC unless he remained silent about the

decision not to renew his contract.

61. In this meeting, Vice Chair Martin told Dr. Shaughnessy that there was “no cause” for the

decision to not renew Dr. Shaughnessy and alleged that there does not have to be a reason to

decide not to renew his contract.

19

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 19 of 33


62. Dr. Shaughnessy was shocked by this abrupt decision and requested additional

information about the reasons for his discharge. Chair Mathew elaborated and stated that Dr.

Shaughnessy was “often unhappy” during his “presentation” and “interactions” with Chair

Mathew.

63. Chair Mathew also stated that he had heard primarily from Vice Chair Martin that Dr.

Shaughnessy was guilty of a “lack of professionalism” and was “not a good fit.” Chair

Mathew repeated that Dr. Shaughnessy “seemed unhappy to them”, and that he was reluctant

or unable to do certain cases, referring to the accommodations offered to Dr. Shaughnessy

regarding MRI cases. Chair Mathew stated that the feedback he received from Vice Chair

Martin encouraged him to make the decision to not renew Dr. Shaughnessy’s contract.

64. Chair Mathew then addressed Dr. Shaughnessy’s disability, stating that he knew Dr.

Shaughnessy had gone through “trials” in his life. Chair Mathew referenced the Resident’s

suicide as having been a significant event to Dr. Shaughnessy.

65. Chair Mathew then told Dr. Shaughnessy that he had seriously considered the decision to

fire him and compared the situation to that of Dr. Jones being forced out of the Department.

Referring to Dr. Jones’ situation, Chair Mathew stated that it was not as if he decided one day

that, “We need to get rid of Cheryl.”

66. Chair Mathew and Dr. Shaughnessy then discussed Dr. Shaughnessy’s transition to

Regional Anesthesia. Chair Mathew stated that he had the authority to “overrule” Regional

Anesthesia’s decision. Chair Mathew then threatened Dr. Shaughnessy, stating that if Dr.

Shaughnessy did not “create a divisive situation with the Department,” then Chair Mathew

would help him get the job. However, if Chair Mathew learned that Dr. Shaughnessy had

been “bad-mouthing” him, he would make sure he did not get the job. Dr. Shaughnessy

20

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 20 of 33


understood that these threats were directed against his earlier complaints on behalf of female

physicians and physicians with disabilities. Chair Mathew further admonished Dr.

Shaughnessy that he would be harmed professionally if he spoke to anyone outside of that

room about the nonrenewal of his contract or if Dr. Shaughnessy contacted an attorney.

67. On or about January 18, 2017, Dr. Shaughnessy met with Chair Mathew alone in order to

request that he reconsider his decision to not renew his employment contract. Dr.

Shaughnessy discussed his treatment for depression and that his personal struggles were well

known within the Department. Chair Mathew responded that Dr. Shaughnessy was being let

go for “less than optimum professionalism,” and that Dr. Shaughnessy’s previous actions

within the Department were regarded as “not being team-oriented,” referring to Dr.

Shaughnessy’s objections to the way in which Dr. Jones was treated and the response to the

Resident’s death. Chair Mathew then referenced Dr. Jones, stating that her “illness” was

driving her behavior, and that she had shown disrespect for authority and harmed the

Department. Chair Mathew reiterated that he had been hearing negative things from Vice

Chair Martin about Dr. Shaughnessy’s “professionalism.”

68. Dr. Shaughnessy then told Chair Mathew that it appeared that his termination was

because of his complaints about Dr. Jones and the response to the Resident’s death. Chair

Mathew denied this, stating that Dr. Shaughnessy, “did not seem happy.”

69. Chair Mathew also opined about his disagreement with the Americans with Disabilities

Act, complaining to Dr. Shaughnessy that the law was intended to assist people with physical

limitations access buildings and now it was being misused for “other purposes,” referring to

its application to psychological disabilities.

70. Chair Mathew then said Dr. Shaughnessy could resign to avoid the “spectre of

21

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 21 of 33


termination” like Dr. Jones, and others had done. Dr. Shaughnessy stated that he refused to

resign. Chair Mathew told Dr. Shaughnessy that he would reconsider the termination.

71. Chair Mathew also told Dr. Shaughnessy that he would not allow him to pursue

professional opportunities at the VA. Dr. Shaughnessy requested Chair Mathew’s support for

pursuing a position at the VA, but Chair Mathew refused, indicating that Duke cannot

“arbitrarily” allow Dr. Shaughnessy to go to the VA, and that it may harm Duke financially.

72. Similarly, Chair Mathew told Dr. Shaughnessy that Duke typically does not let its

physicians obtain employment with UNC. However, Chair Mathew communicated that

support for this position was contingent upon Dr. Shaughnessy’s silence surrounding the

reasoning for the decision not to renew his contract.

73. Several days later, Chair Mathew stated that his decision to terminate Dr. Shaughnessy’s

contract would stand.

74. On or about January 22, 2017, Dr. Shaughnessy contacted Dr. Ben Reese of the Duke

Office of Institutional Equity regarding his knowledge of a violation of Duke’s discrimination

and retaliation policies. An administrator from that office replied by email and referred Dr.

Shaughnessy to the Faculty Ombuds as an avenue of assistance.

75. Following a telephone conference with the Faculty Ombuds, on or about January 22,

2017, Dr. Shaughnessy officially appealed Chair Mathew’s non-renewal of his faculty

appointment within Duke’s internal grievance process under the Faculty Handbook.

76. On or about February 28, 2017, after receiving numerous emails, text messages, and

conversations expressing an intent to hire him, Dr. Shaughnessy was suddenly told by the

President of Regional Anesthesia, Dr. Edward Sanders, that he did not think a job was

available and he was concerned that Dr. Shaughnessy would not be a “good fit” at Duke

22

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 22 of 33


Regional based upon what was going on at Duke. Dr. Sanders admitted to having spoken with

Chair Mathew and Vice Chair Martin and others about Dr. Shaughnessy.

77. Upon information and belief, Duke by and through the actions of its agents, prevented

Regional Anesthesia from entering into a contract with Dr. Shaughnessy.

78. Upon information and belief, Duke’s agents prevented Regional Anesthesia’s contract

with Dr. Shaughnessy because of Dr. Shaughnessy’s objections to Chair Mathew’s disability

and sex discrimination, as described herein.

79. Because of Dr. Shaughnessy’s terminated contract with Duke, he was not permitted to

remain employed by PDC, could no longer be a doctor at Duke, and was denied his profit-

sharing bonus known as “gain share.”

80. Prior to Dr. Shaughnessy’s complaints about the Department’s conduct regarding the

Resident and Dr. Jones, Chair Mathew had renewed Dr. Shaughnessy’s contract with Duke on

July 1, 2014, July 1, 2015 and July 1, 2016.

81. Prior to Dr. Shaughnessy’s complaints about the Department’s conduct regarding the

Resident and Dr. Jones, Chair Mathew rendered a positive evaluation of Dr. Shaughnessy’s

job performance in May 2016, in addition to positive evaluations in 2014 and 2015.

82. Duke, by and through its decision to not renew Dr. Shaughnessy’s contract, breached

material terms in its contract with Dr. Shaughnessy, including that (1) his contract would be

renewed subject to satisfactory annual performance and programmatic needs; (2) that he

would be free from institutional censorship or discipline according to the promise of academic

freedom set forth in the DFH; and (3) by the failure to abide by the applicable procedure for

contract reappointment set forth in Appendix C of the DFH.

83. Because of the breach of contract, retaliation, and discrimination against Dr.

23

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 23 of 33


Shaughnessy, he has incurred lost wages, benefits, and has experienced emotional distress.

Moreover, his professional reputation has been greatly damaged.

84. On or about June 7, 2017, Dr. Shaughnessy filed a Charge of Discrimination with the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Charge No. 433-2017-02262, alleging

that Duke had discriminated against him on the basis of disability and had retaliated against

his complaints of sex discrimination and disability discrimination.

85. As of June 30, 2017, Dr. Shaughnessy’s employment with Duke ended.

86. On or about February 26, 2018, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue (“NRTS”),

entitling Dr. Shaughnessy to bring this present action within ninety (90) days of receipt of the

NRTS.

87. Dr. Shaughnessy utilized the DFH’s internal grievance procedures to resolve the

wrongful termination and breach of contract. However, Duke denied Dr. Shaughnessy’s

grievances and failed to respond with appropriate remedial action.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION


Discrimination under the ADA & ADAAA

88. The foregoing allegations of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set

forth herein.

89. Plaintiff filed a timely charge with the EEOC alleging violations of the ADA and the

ADAAA by Duke. On or about February 26, 2018, the EEOC issued its NRTS entitling Dr.

Shaughnessy to bring suit on his claims under the ADA and ADAAA. All conditions

precedent to this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

90. At all times relevant herein, Dr. Shaughnessy was and is “disabled,” within the ADAAA

in that regarding his congenital heart block, depression, and rosacea, (1) Dr. Shaughnessy had

24

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 24 of 33


a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities;

(2) Dr. Shaughnessy had a record of such impairment; and/or (3) Dr. Shaughnessy was

regarded as having such an impairment.

91. Duke regarded Dr. Shaughnessy’s disabilities as substantially limiting him in major life

activities of the operation of a major bodily function and discriminated against him as such in

violation of the ADA.

92. Duke discriminated against Dr. Shaughnessy by terminating his employment on the basis

of Dr. Shaughnessy’s disability, by blocking his future employment prospects, and refusing to

pay him the full amount of his gain share.

93. At the time of Dr. Shaughnessy’s discharge, he was performing his job at a level that met

his employer’s legitimate expectations.

94. The effect of these unlawful practices has been to deprive Plaintiff of equal employment

opportunities, and to otherwise adversely affect his employment status as an employee

because of his disability.

95. Duke had no legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its adverse employment action

against Dr. Shaughnessy.

96. Upon information and belief, the acts as alleged herein were committed against Dr.

Shaughnessy with malice or reckless indifference to the Dr. Shaughnessy’s protected rights.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION


Hostile Work Environment Based on Disability

97. Dr. Shaughnessy incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

98. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) provides that is an unlawful employment practice for an employer

25

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 25 of 33


to, “discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of

such individual in regard to . . . other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.”

99. At all times relevant herein, Dr. Shaughnessy was and is “disabled,” within the ADAAA

in that regarding his congenital heart block, depression, and rosacea, (1) Dr. Shaughnessy had

a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities;

(2) Dr. Shaughnessy had a record of such impairments; and/or (3) Dr. Shaughnessy was

regarded as having such impairments.

100. Dr. Shaughnessy was subjected to unwelcome harassment based upon his disability.

101. The complained-of harassment was sufficiently pervasive or severe to alter the terms,

conditions, and privileges of his employment.

102. The foregoing harassment is attributable to and was caused by the acts of the employer,

Duke.

103. Duke has engaged in discriminatory practices with malice or reckless indifference to

Shaughnessy’s federally protected rights, thereby entitling him to punitive damages pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION


Retaliation in Violation of ADA & ADAAA

104. Dr. Shaughnessy incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

105. At all times relevant herein, Dr. Shaughnessy was and is “disabled,” within the ADAAA

in that regarding his congenital heart block, depression, and rosacea, (1) Dr. Shaughnessy had

a physical or mental impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities;

(2) Dr. Shaughnessy had a record of such impairments; and/or (3) Dr. Shaughnessy was

26

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 26 of 33


regarded as having such impairments.

106. Dr. Shaughnessy engaged in protected activity under the ADA and ADAAA by

complaining to Chair Mathew and others about the ongoing discrimination and harassment on

the basis of disability at Duke.

107. Following Dr. Shaughnessy’s protected activity, his employment contract was not

renewed by Duke, his employment opportunity at Duke Regional was eliminated by Duke,

and his gain share was reduced in December 2016, and eliminated for June 2017, in retaliation

against his protected activity.

108. The adverse employment action taken by Duke was because of, and in response to, Dr.

Shaughnessy’s complaints of harassment and discrimination on the basis of disability.

109. Duke’s actions have caused Dr. Shaughnessy to suffer mental and emotional distress,

entitling him to compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

110. Duke’s discriminatory conduct, in violation of ADA and ADAAA, has caused Plaintiff to

suffer loss of pay, benefits, and prestige.

111. Duke has engaged in discriminatory practices with malice or reckless indifference to Dr.

Shaughnessy’s federally protected rights, thereby entitling him to punitive damages pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION


Retaliation in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

112. Dr. Shaughnessy incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

113. Dr. Shaughnessy engaged in protected activity under 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3, by

complaining to Chair Mathew and others, as described herein, about the discrimination and

27

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 27 of 33


harassment on the basis of sex perpetrated against female physicians in Duke’s

Anesthesiology Department.

114. Following Dr. Shaughnessy’s protected activity, his employment contract was not

renewed by Duke, his employment opportunity at Duke Regional was eliminated by Duke,

and his gain share was reduced in December 2016, and eliminated for June 2017, in retaliation

against his protected activity.

115. The adverse employment actions taken by Duke was because of, and in response to, Dr.

Shaughnessy’s complaints of harassment and discrimination based on sex.

116. Duke’s actions have caused Dr. Shaughnessy to suffer mental and emotional distress,

entitling him to compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

117. Duke’s discriminatory conduct, in violation of Title VII, has caused Dr. Shaughnessy to

suffer loss of pay, benefits, and prestige.

118. Duke has engaged in discriminatory practices with malice or reckless indifference to Dr.

Shaughnessy’s federally protected rights, thereby entitling him to punitive damages pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION


Wrongful Discharge in Violation of North Carolina Public Policy

119. The foregoing allegations of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set

forth herein.

120. Duke’s termination of Dr. Shaughnessy’s employment was for unlawful reasons and

purposes that contravene North Carolina public policy. Namely:

(a) Discrimination on the basis of disability as set forth in the NCPDPA, N.C. Gen. Stat

168A-1 et seq. Dr. Shaughnessy is protected under public policy against disability

28

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 28 of 33


discrimination in that he is a disabled individual. Dr. Shaughnessy (1) has an impairment

that significantly affects his ability to perform major life activities; (2) has a record of

such an impairment; and/or (3) was regarded by Duke as having such an impairment.

Duke discriminated against Dr. Shaughnessy in violation of public policy by terminating

him because he was a disabled individual, had a record of a disability, and/or was

regarded by Duke as disabled.

(b) Discrimination on the basis of disability as set forth in the North Carolina Equal

Employment Practices Act (“NCEEPA”), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.1, et seq. Dr.

Shaughnessy is protected under public policy against disability discrimination in that he

is a disabled individual. Dr. Shaughnessy (1) has an impairment that significantly affects

his ability to perform major life activities; (2) has a record of such an impairment; and/or

(3) was regarded by Duke as having such an impairment. Duke discriminated against Dr.

Shaughnessy in violation of public policy by terminating him because he was a disabled

individual, had a record of a disability, and/or was regarded by Duke as disabled.

121. Duke’s actions in discharging Dr. Shaughnessy were taken with malice or with reckless

indifference to Dr. Shaughnessy’s rights.

122. As a result of Dr. Shaughnessy’s wrongful discharge, he has suffered emotional distress,

economic damages, and damage to his reputation, inter alia.

123. Dr. Shaughnessy is entitled to back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages,

and such other relief as the court shall deem proper.

29

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 29 of 33


SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Contract
(Against Defendant Duke)

124. The foregoing allegations of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set

forth herein.

125. Dr. Shaughnessy had a binding and enforceable contract with Duke, as described herein.

126. Duke breached the terms of its contract with Dr. Shaughnessy, by and through the

following:

a. Dr. Shaughnessy’s contract represented a contract of employment terminable “for

cause.” Specifically, Duke maintained the right to terminate the continuing renewal of

his contract based upon unsatisfactory annual performance or programmatic needs.

Duke terminated the continuing renewal of Dr. Shaughnessy’s contract for “no

cause.” Accordingly, Duke has breached its contract with Dr. Shaughnessy;

b. Dr. Shaughnessy’s contract, which incorporated the DFH by reference, was not

renewed for a reason which violated Duke’s promise to Dr. Shaughnessy that he may

“act and . . . speak in his . . . capacity as a citizen without institutional censorship or

discipline.” Namely, Dr. Shaughnessy’s contract was not renewed because of his

objections to Chair Mathew’s treatment of people with disabilities and his response to

the Resident’s suicide; and

c. The decision not to reappoint Dr. Shaughnessy’s contract failed to abide by the

reappointment policy provided in Appendix C of the DFH, as described herein.

127. As a result of Duke’s breach of contract, Dr. Shaughnessy as incurred damages, as will be

proven at trial.

30

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 30 of 33


SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

128. The foregoing allegations of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set

forth herein.

129. A prospective contract of employment existed between Dr. Shaughnessy and Regional

Anesthesia, PLLC.

130. Duke held a reasonable expectation that Dr. Shaughnessy would contract with Regional

Anesthesia, PLLC.

131. Duke, by and through the acts of Chair Mathew and Vice Chair Martin, intentionally

induced Regional Anesthesia PLLC not to contract with Dr. Shaughnessy.

132. By so doing, Duke acted with malice and without justification.

133. But for the interference of Duke, Regional Anesthesia, PLLC would have entered into a

contract with Dr. Shaughnessy.

134. Duke’s actions resulted in actual damages to Dr. Shaughnessy, as will be proven at trial.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION


Tortious Interference with Contract
(Against Defendant Duke)

135. The foregoing allegations of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set

forth herein.

136. A contract of employment existed between Dr. Shaughnessy and Defendant PDC.

137. Duke knew about the contract between Dr. Shaughnessy and Defendant PDC.

138. Duke, by and through the acts of Chair Mathew and Vice Chair Martin, intentionally

induced Defendant PDC not to perform its contract with Plaintiff.

139. By so doing, Duke acted with malice and without justification.

31

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 31 of 33


140. Duke’s actions resulted in actual damages to Dr. Shaughnessy, as will be proven at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS:

1. That Plaintiff recover of Defendants compensatory damages in an amount to be

determined by the trier of fact;

2. That Plaintiff recovers punitive damages of the Defendants in an amount calculated to

punish Defendants and deter similar future conduct;

3. That Plaintiff recover from the Defendants reasonable costs and expenses, including

attorney fees, in bringing this action;

4. That all matters so triable be tried before a jury; and

5. For such other and further relief as to the Court seems just and proper.

This the 5th day of September, 2018.

Kornbluth Ginsberg Law Group, P.A.

/s/ Michael A. Kornbluth


Michael A. Kornbluth
N.C. Bar No. 27928
Email: mkornbluth@KGLawNC.com
Andrew J. Henson
N.C. State Bar No. 49266
Email: ahenson@KGLawNC.com
3100 Tower Blvd., Suite 800
Durham, NC 27707
Telephone: (919) 401-4100
Facsimile: (919) 401-4104

32

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 32 of 33


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that the undersigned has this date filed the foregoing Amended

Complaint with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of

such filing to the following:

KIMBERLY JOYCE LEHMAN


OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4208 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 1100
RALEIGH, NC 27609
919-789-3183
kimberly.lehman@ogletreedeakins.com

ROBERT A. SAR
OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
4208 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 1100
RALEIGH, NC 27609
919-787-9700
Robert.Sar@ogletreedeakins.com

JOHN ANTHONY ZALOOM


MOORE & VAN ALLEN
P.O. Box 13706
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709
919-286-8182
johnzaloom@mvalaw.com

This the 5th day of September, 2018.

Kornbluth Ginsberg Law Group, P.A.

/s/ Michael A. Kornbluth


Michael A. Kornbluth
N.C. Bar No. 27928
Email: mkornbluth@KGLawNC.com
Andrew J. Henson
N.C. State Bar No. 49266
Email: ahenson@KGLawNC.com
3100 Tower Blvd., Suite 800
Durham, NC 27707
Telephone: (919) 401-4100
Facsimile: (919) 401-4104

33

Case 1:18-cv-00461-CCE-JEP Document 19 Filed 09/05/18 Page 33 of 33