$115K Defamation Verdict Over Workplace Accusations of Domestic Abuse

From the Joint Pre-Trial Memorandum in McQuade v. UMass Memorial Health Care, Inc., the plaintiff’s position:

In the summer of 2020, a position at UMass Memorial’s Heart Vascular Interventional Lab commonly known as the Cath lab opened. Mr. McQuade and Andrews both applied for the Cath lab position. Ms. Andrews was awarded the Cath lab position. Once Mr. McQuade learned that Ms. Andrews was awarded the Cath lab position, he reached out to his union representatives for advice. Mr. McQuade’s Massachusetts Nurses Association (“MNA”) union representatives … both advised that Mr. McQuade should file a grievance because he had seniority over Andrews, and had the requisite experience to work in the Cath lab.

Ultimately, on September 11, 2020, Mr. McQuade was successful in his grievance and was awarded the Cath lab position. This, in turn, caused Andrews to leave the Cath lab position and return to her previous position in the float pool. Andrews was angry that she had to return to the float pool. Andrews desperately wanted to stay in the Cath lab and filed her own counter grievance that was eventually denied at the “step 3” stage by UMass Memorial. Therefore, the only way Andrews could be able to return to the Cath lab would be if a position opened by resignation or otherwise, including the resignation of Mr. McQuade….

The Nurse Defendants are all friends and would frequently socialize outside of work together. Mr. McQuade expects the evidence will show that, the Nurse Defendants did the unthinkable, and started a vile, and frankly evil slander campaign against Mr. McQuade, in an effort to have him resign from the Cath lab, so the Nurse Defendants could all work together again. Specifically, the Nurse Defendants began spreading defamatory rumors around UMass Memorial that stated Mr. McQuade abused his wife and child and had an open DCF investigation against him. Further, Clark stated that Mr. McQuade “created a farm in [his] back yard in order to lure in children as [his] prey.”

{Q: “Okay. And the allegations concerning Mr. McQuade were a child abuse and spousal abuse. By spousal abuse, specifically, did you mean that he hit his wife?” Mr. Spezzaferro: “I think the way it was put to me was that he hits his wife.”

Q: “Were you aware of any statements circulating around the hospital relating to Mr. McQuade and child abuse? Ms. Baer: Objection. Ms. O’Rourke: Yes.” … Ms. O’Rourke: “Basically that there are statements being made by Ms. Andrews, and Ms. Clark, and Ms. Spratt while—about Patrick’s child being taken away by DCF and the alleged child abuse.”}

The abhorrent slander became widespread throughout UMass Memorial…. Because Andrews was in the float pool, the defamation was easily spread as she “floated” from unit-to-unit slandering Mr. McQuade….

The rampant defamation became so widespread that Ms. Champagne, took a huge professional risk and decided she needed 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 meeting, as part of the regular course of her job, that stated, in pertinent part, the following:

… [Andrews] said fuck him—he took my job—he’s big and scary

He’s [Mr. McQuade] lazy a hard piece of shit

He’s [Mr. McQuade] abusive and knows how to use guns

DSS [DCF] case—abusive daughter—he’s abusive Yeah, she keeps—about this within 7ICU. They are her friends.

Character assassination

She [Andrews] was on 3ICU all weekend carrying on about Patrick.

After the meeting with Ms. Champagne, fully aware of the extent of the defamation, Ms. Hiza and other UMass Memorial HR staff investigated the defamation. Eventually UMass Memorial HR staff and Ms. Hiza met with the Nurse Defendants. Aware of the slander campaign, UMass Memorial, during work hours, instructed each Nurse Defendant to stop the defamation. Importantly, after the investigation, Ms. Hiza and UMass Memorial HR could not conclude that defamation was not occurring….

UMass terminated him for alleged sexual misconduct against another nurse, … McCarthy … who was friends with the Nurse Defendants. UMass Memorial had a written investigatory report when it terminated Mr. McQuade. In the written report Mr. McQuade complained thathe believed he was retaliated against by McCarthy because of the defamation.

McCarthy also brought criminal charges against Mr. McQuade. At trial, Mr. McQuade was found not guilty of a sexually related felony against McCarthy.

The defendants’ position:

Defendants respectfully submit that Mr. McQuade has no admissible evidence that will show that he was the subject of any defamatory statements by any of the Nurse Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff has no admissible evidence to prove: when the alleged defamatory statements were made, how the alleged defamatory statements we made, where the alleged defamatory statements were made, or to whom the alleged defamatory statements were made. Moreover, Plaintiff has waivered on what he has alleged to be the contents of the allegedly defamatory statements.

The reason for Plaintiffs lack of evidence is clear: no statements were made. Rather, Plaintiff—who was mentally “spiraling” in 2020—was the one who told multiple people working for UMass Memorial that there were defamatory statements said about him (i.e., he was the one that spread stories of the alleged defamatory statements). Not one person can or will testify that they heard any of the Nurse Defendants make any statement about Plaintiff. After Plaintiff brought his accusations to UMass Memorial’s Human Resources, the allegations were promptly investigated and not substantiated.

The evidence will show that Plaintiff’s employment was terminated because he sexually assaulted a nurse (not one of the Nurse Defendants) and was criminally charged and convicted for the conduct. Plaintiffs relocated by his own choice after he was criminally charged, which is unrelated to Plaintiff’s claims of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. [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 against Clark (which I assume means it didn’t believe she made the “created a farm in [his] back yard in order to lure in children as [his] prey” claim), but did prove that Andrews had defamed him. The jury awarded McQuade $100 in actual damages against Andrews, and $75K against UMass Memorial, to which the court added $40K in interest.