Massey V. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois 226 F.3d 922 (2000) I. Procedure. a. Who are the parties?

i. Stephanie A Massey ii. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois b. Who brought the action? i. Stephanie Massey c. In what court did the case originate? i. Federal trial court d. Who won at the trial-court level? i. The jury found for Massey but the judge granted post-verdict judgment for BCBS. e. What is the appellate history of the case? i. Massey appealed the case to the federal appellate court. Facts. a. What are the relevant facts as recited by this court? i. Massey is an African-American woman who worked for BCBS. ii. She worded for Blue Crosss direct markets division. iii. For the first few years of her employment she answered customer complaints and inquiries. iv. From 1992 to 1994, she received positive evaluations: her technical and research skills were "excellent," her writing had "improved a good deal," and she was rated "superior" in most categories v. The evaluations were critical only of her organizational skills and attendance. vi. In 1994 Massey was hired into Blue Crosss special executive inquires unit that responded to more difficult complaints headed by Susan Amico an Caucasian woman. vii. The unit also had two other employees who were already there Thomas, an
African-American whose position was equivalent to Massey's, and Bessie Goree, another African-American who held the position of administrative assistant in the unit.

II.

viii. At the same time as she hired Massey, Amico also hired Karen Garza, a Caucasian woman, for a job equivalent to Massey's. ix. The Unit was situated in a room with two rows of three desks. Amico arranged the seating of the Unit such that all of the African-American employees (Thomas, Goree, and Massey) were in one row. Amico placed herself and Garza in the other row, with the only empty desk positioned between the two. x. Amico's evaluations of Massey went from good to bad rather quickly. By 1996, Amico claimed that Massey's writing was "below average," her errors were numerous, and that her other skills were merely "satisfactory." xi. Amico to put Massey on a 60-day probation period, at the end of which Amico fired her.

xii. Massey sued Blue Cross in March 1996, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on her race in violation of Title VII and 1981. xiii. The court granted Blue Crosss summary judgment motion as to the retaliation charge, but it allowed Masseys discrimination charge to go forward. xiv. At trial, Massey introduced evidence that her work had previously been commended, as well as evidence that her work in the Executive Inquiries Unit was not poor xv. She testified that Amico had called her "stupid," and had required her work to be rewritten, even when there was nothing wrong with it. In fact, Massey's work was redone even when she copied work that had already been deemed acceptable xvi. Massey argued that Amico's negative evaluations were not based on her performance, but on Amico's racial stereotypes. Massey noted that Garza, a Caucasian woman, was given more assistance by Amico than she was, and that Amico had tried to separate the races through seating assignments. xvii. Blue Cross defended its decision by arguing that Massey was fired due to poor writing, investigatory, and follow-up skills. xviii. Blue Cross claimed that the other African-American employees in the unit were not subjected to discrimination, and that the seating assignment could not have separated the races because the rows of seats were too close to allow for any meaningful separation. xix. The jury believed Massey, returning verdict in her favor on February 10, 1999. xx. Blue Cross filed a Rule 50 Motion and the district court granted it, entering judgment as matter of law on August 24, 1999. xxi. Blue Cross argues that Masseys discharge was attributable to her poor written communication skills, investigatory ability, and follow-through skills. These are, of course, legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the discharge xxii. Massey presented examples of her own written work, which the jury may have seen as undercutting Blue Crosss stated reason for firing her. xxiii. While corrections were noted on many of Massey's letters and other work product, these corrections were often not matters of incorrect grammar, spelling, or substance. xxiv. The jury also heard Amico's admission that other employees in Massey's Unit made mistakes, and it knew that Amico could not explain why she had evidently criticized Massey more than others. Amico's own evaluations of Massey's work contained numerous spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors. xxv. Once again, however, even if Amico was not an A+ writer, it is hard to see why insisting on good writing from her subordinates amounted to racial discrimination, intentional or otherwise. It is always possible, of course, that the jury might have disbelieved everything Amico said, but we routinely deny summary judgments based on that kind of hope, and

consistency requires us also to reject that possibility as a way of saving the jury's verdict. xxvi. Massey also presented more immediate evidence that Blue Crosss actual reason for firing her was discriminatory because after she was fired a Caucasian employee replaced her. xxvii. The district court felt that neither the seating nor the name-calling could support a claim of racial discrimination. It was particularly troubled by the "seating arrangement" evidence. Because the two aisles of the room were very close together, the court observed that placing African-Americans on one side and Caucasians on the other could not possibly indicate racial animus xxviii. Judgment was affirmed in favor for Blue Cross Blue Shield. b. Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion? i. I would like to know why there was a racial separation on the floor between the workers. ii. I would also like to know why Massey was singled out. III. Issues. a. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court? i. The issue being litigated was discriminatory firing of an AfricanAmerican employee. b. Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues? i. I agree with the court finding for Blue Cross because Massey didnt have substantial evidence of discrimination. She sued mainly out of retaliation. Holding. a. What is the courts precise holding (decision)? i. At the federal trial court the Jury found for Massey. When the case was Appealed the federal Appellate court found for Massey. b. What is its rationale for that decision? i. The rational for the decision was Blue Cross fired her based on her work ethic and lack of sufficient work. c. Do you agree with that rationale? i. I agree with the court because when it comes to third party payers if there isnt proper documentation an employees error could cost a lot of money. Implications. a. What does the case mean for healthcare today? i. The case effects healthcare due to ethics issues. Healthcare is a broad area that serves both patients but employees in every aspect. This case deals more with employment issues and ethical termination. Healthcare organizations need to be vigilant so when an employee is terminated it doesnt turn around to be discrimination.

IV.

V.

b. What were its implications when the decision was announced? i. The implications when the decision was announces was the employer

needs to be careful that their actions are not discriminatory. c. How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these implications? i. Healthcare administrators need to have a strict set of protocols and procedures when it comes to the disciplinary actions taken on employers. d. What would be different today if the case had been decided differently? i. If the case had been decided differently employers would have to worry about their actions. Employers would fear terminating employees due to retaliation.