Kuznarowis v. Tobey Hospital ( 2019 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 18-1662
LEE KUZNAROWIS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
TOBEY HOSPITAL; SOUTHCOAST HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Thompson, and Barron,
Circuit Judges.
David G. Gabor and Wagner Law Group on brief for appellant.
Anthony D. Rizzotti, Gregory A. Brown, Kevin E. Burke, and
Littler Mendelson, P.C. on brief for appellees.
January 22, 2019
Per Curiam. After careful consideration of the record
and the parties' arguments, we conclude for essentially the reasons
given by the district court that Tobey Hospital (Tobey) and
Southcoast Health Systems, Inc. (Southcoast), the defendants, are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and affirm. See
Kuznarowis v. Tobey Hosp., 320 F. Supp. 3d 307, 309 (D. Mass.
2018).
To summarize, our de novo review found no genuine issues
of fact material to any claim. Lee Kuznarowis, the plaintiff,
alleged that his employer, Tobey, and its operator, Southcoast,
discriminated against him based on his age and gender, in violation
of Massachusetts and federal law, and retaliated against him for
complaints about the discrimination, also in violation of state
and federal law. Tobey and Southcoast say that Kuznarowis was
fired because an investigation uncovered irregularities in his
handling of prescription narcotics, including substandard
medication administration and documentation practices. When Tobey
presented Kuznarowis with the investigation's results, Kuznarowis
could neither explain these deviations from best practices nor
account for unaccounted-for controlled substances. The record
contains extensive support for Tobey and Southcoast's legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons for terminating Kuznarowis. Included
is a detailed report on the investigation submitted to the state's
Board of Registration in Nursing, as is required when a hospital
- 2 -
discovers such irregularities. And, because Kuznarowis offers no
evidence suggesting that these reasons were pretext for
discriminatory ones, he cannot prevail on his discrimination
claims. See Murray v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. W. LLC, 789 F.3d 20,
26-27 (1st Cir. 2015).
Kuznarowis waived his retaliation claims by mentioning
them only passingly in the district court, as that court noted.
See Kuznarowis, 320 F. Supp. 3d. at 314; see also McCoy v.
Massachusetts Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13, 22 (1st Cir. 1991). In
any event, the retaliation claims would not succeed: There is a
paucity of evidence that the complaints were either protected or
the cause of an adverse employment action.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Rule 27.0(c).
- 3 -