From the Joint Pre-Trial Memorandum in McQuade v. UMass Memorial Health Care, Inc., the plaintiff’s place:
In the summertime of 2020, a place at UMass Memorial’s Coronary heart Vascular Interventional Lab generally referred to as the Cath lab opened. Mr. McQuade and Andrews each utilized for the Cath lab place. Ms. Andrews was awarded the Cath lab place. As soon as Mr. McQuade realized that Ms. Andrews was awarded the Cath lab place, he reached out to his union representatives for recommendation. Mr. McQuade’s Massachusetts Nurses Affiliation (“MNA”) union representatives … each suggested that Mr. McQuade ought to file a grievance as a result of he had seniority over Andrews, and had the requisite expertise to work within the Cath lab.
In the end, on September 11, 2020, Mr. McQuade was profitable in his grievance and was awarded the Cath lab place. This, in flip, precipitated Andrews to depart the Cath lab place and return to her earlier place within the float pool. Andrews was offended that she needed to return to the float pool. Andrews desperately wished to remain within the Cath lab and filed her personal counter grievance that was finally denied on the “step 3” stage by UMass Memorial. Subsequently, the one manner Andrews might be capable to return to the Cath lab could be if a place opened by resignation or in any other case, together with the resignation of Mr. McQuade….
The Nurse Defendants are all mates and would steadily socialize exterior of labor collectively. Mr. McQuade expects the proof will present that, the Nurse Defendants did the unthinkable, and began a vile, and albeit evil slander marketing campaign towards Mr. McQuade, in an effort to have him resign from the Cath lab, so the Nurse Defendants might all work collectively once more. Particularly, the Nurse Defendants started spreading defamatory rumors round UMass Memorial that said Mr. McQuade abused his spouse and little one and had an open DCF investigation towards him. Additional, Clark said that Mr. McQuade “created a farm in [his] again yard with the intention to lure in kids as [his] prey.”
{Q: “Okay. And the allegations regarding Mr. McQuade had been a toddler abuse and spousal abuse. By spousal abuse, particularly, did you imply that he hit his spouse?” Mr. Spezzaferro: “I believe the best way it was put to me was that he hits his spouse.”
Q: “Have been you conscious of any statements circulating across the hospital referring to Mr. McQuade and little one abuse? Ms. Baer: Objection. Ms. O’Rourke: Sure.” … Ms. O’Rourke: “Principally that there are statements being made by Ms. Andrews, and Ms. Clark, and Ms. Spratt whereas—about Patrick’s little one being taken away by DCF and the alleged little one abuse.”}
The abhorrent slander turned widespread all through UMass Memorial…. As a result of Andrews was within the float pool, the defamation was simply unfold as she “floated” from unit-to-unit slandering Mr. McQuade….
The rampant defamation turned so widespread that Ms. Champagne, took an enormous skilled threat and determined she wanted to go to HR. Accordingly, Ms. Hiza met with Ms. Champagne and Mr. Spezzaferro on the afternoon of November 19, 2020. Ms. Hiza took contemporaneous notes of the assembly, as a part of the common course of her job, that said, in pertinent half, the next:
… [Andrews] stated fuck him—he took my job—he is large and scary
He is [Mr. McQuade] lazy a tough piece of shit
He is [Mr. McQuade] abusive and is aware of the way to use weapons
DSS [DCF] case—abusive daughter—he is abusive Yeah, she retains—about this inside 7ICU. They’re her mates.
Character assassination
She [Andrews] was on 3ICU all weekend carrying on about Patrick.
After the assembly with Ms. Champagne, absolutely conscious of the extent of the defamation, Ms. Hiza and different UMass Memorial HR employees investigated the defamation. Finally UMass Memorial HR employees and Ms. Hiza met with the Nurse Defendants. Conscious of the slander marketing campaign, UMass Memorial, throughout work hours, instructed every Nurse Defendant to cease the defamation. Importantly, after the investigation, Ms. Hiza and UMass Memorial HR couldn’t conclude that defamation was not occurring….
UMass terminated him for alleged sexual misconduct towards one other nurse, … McCarthy … who was mates with the Nurse Defendants. UMass Memorial had a written investigatory report when it terminated Mr. McQuade. Within the written report Mr. McQuade complained thathe believed he was retaliated towards by McCarthy due to the defamation.
McCarthy additionally introduced felony prices towards Mr. McQuade. At trial, Mr. McQuade was discovered not responsible of a sexually associated felony towards McCarthy.
The defendants’ place:
Defendants respectfully submit that Mr. McQuade has no admissible proof that may present that he was the topic of any defamatory statements by any of the Nurse Defendants. Particularly, Plaintiff has no admissible proof to show: when the alleged defamatory statements had been made, how the alleged defamatory statements we made, the place the alleged defamatory statements had been made, or to whom the alleged defamatory statements had been made. Furthermore, Plaintiff has waivered on what he has alleged to be the contents of the allegedly defamatory statements.
The rationale for Plaintiffs lack of proof is obvious: no statements had been made. Fairly, Plaintiff—who was mentally “spiraling” in 2020—was the one who informed a number of folks working for UMass Memorial that there have been defamatory statements stated about him (i.e., he was the one which unfold tales of the alleged defamatory statements). Not one particular person can or will testify that they heard any of the Nurse Defendants make any assertion about Plaintiff. After Plaintiff introduced his accusations to UMass Memorial’s Human Assets, the allegations had been promptly investigated and never substantiated.
The proof will present that Plaintiff’s employment was terminated as a result of he sexually assaulted a nurse (not one of many Nurse Defendants) and was criminally charged and convicted for the conduct. Plaintiffs relocated by his personal alternative after he was criminally charged, which is unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional misery. [According to a Nov. 21 article about the defamation case in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette (Toni Caushi), McQuade had been fired “following sexual allegations by a nurse; he was found guilty in October 2022 on an annoying and accosting charge—a non-sexual misdemeanor” and “found not guilty for an ‘indecent assault and battery charge.'” -EV]
Earlier this month, the jury concluded that plaintiff hadn’t proved his case towards Clark (which I assume means it did not imagine she made the “created a farm in [his] again yard with the intention to lure in kids as [his] prey” declare), however did show that Andrews had defamed him. The jury awarded McQuade $100 in precise damages towards Andrews, and $75K towards UMass Memorial, to which the courtroom added $40K in curiosity.
