Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Walker v. Suburban Hospital Ass'n
Supreme Court brief1990
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Supreme Court, U.S.
FILED
: 89-12 26 “JAN 31 1990
No. JOSEPH F, SPANIOL, JR.
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1989
JAMES GEORGE WALKER,
Petitioner,
SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION,
JOAN FINNERTY, PAUL QUINN, JAMES GARY,
BERNETTE WELCH, CHARLES STEWART,
LLOYD GREEN, DALTON WILLIAMSON,
ERIC E. JOHNSON, HEIDI CHRISTYL
MARCHAND, AESTER HAILU,
Respondents.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
AT RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
James G. WALKER, R.Ph., J.D.
1412 Whittier Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20012
(202) 723-0593
(301) 565-5960
Petitioner Pro Se.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
This petition presents the following questions under
the United States Constitution.
1, When suing for punitive and compensatory damages
under U.S.C, 42, Section 1981, is a jury trial a right?
2. Is a purely private institution impressed with a 14th
Amendment duty, an 8th Amendment duty, a 5th
Amendment duty?
3, Is there a conflict in the interpretation of Patterson
v. McLean Credit Union, 109 S.Ct. 2363 (1989) between
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
(Instant Case No, 89-1412) and the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Case No.
89-7032)?
4, Can an institution receiving Federal funds practice
racial discrimination and sex discrimination?
5. Does the Seniority System prevail for promotion?
6. Are issues involving racial discrimination, economic
exploitation, and health impairment frivolous?
7. Is there disparate impact and disparate treatment
by leaving in a position of authority an individual in-
volved in an IV incident in which a person died after
being administered the said IV Solution?
PARTIES
The original respondents are as indicated, The original
petitioner is as indicated.
(1)
TABLE OF CONTENTS . Se
Po ae ee ee eee ae eee oe l
JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS......... 22s eee eevuess 2
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND
ew ale oe ke Oe 8 ee eee ee 2
ee ee ee kg ke ee keto ee ee 3
Oe) So ie og el egg Sie be 6 Wiad 6-o howe 6 3
B. Proceeding Below ......ccccsccesvcccvesccsenes 4
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ...........24.4. 5
I. Constitutional Tenets. This Case Raises Issues
Arising From An Institution Receiving Federal
Funds And Practicing Racial Discrimination.......... 6
A, Institution Gives Pretextual Reasons For
Discriminating Against The Petitioner............ 6
B. Institution Violates The Contract of
DN Ln Sha 4 a-a y ae ea a ee Se OOo .@ 660828 14
Il. Institution Exposed Petitioner To Carcino-
gumic GUGINNEER . ccc ees eee ses svecees 15
III. For Judicial Economy All Issues Should Be
Heard By A Single Court, Issues Having
Arisen From Common Nucleus Of Circum-
Db 6 6c ROS Per ee ee ROSE Oe ew eee ae ees 16
rr ee ee ee eae ee eee 18
APPENDICES:
Appendix A — Order To Amend Complaint............. la
Appendix B — Filing of Amended Complaint, April
SS Re ee ere ee Te Pe eee eee eee ee 3a
Appendix C — Amended Complaint ...........++++006: 4a
Appendix D — Memorandum & Order, May 26, 1987...... 12a
Appendix E — Remand No. 87-3117. .......6.+00205s 15a
Appendix F — Proposed Interrogatories - Finnerty........ 2la
(12)
mi f
Appendix G — Motion To Compel Finnerty To Answer .... 26a
Appendix H — Report on IV Incident Involving
8 PRUE UEPEVER TC eee ee eee ea 30a
Appendix I— Intraveneous Admixtures Incomp.......... 35a
Appendix J — Document To Jim Gary, September
eS: PURVES TCCe rT ee Tre ee ee eee 37a
Appendix K — Promotions Policy...............0.00+. 39a
Appendix L — Shift Differentials................... 42a
Appendix M — Run, October 23, 1985 ............... 44a
Appendix N — Marchand Accusatory Letter............ 46a
Appendix O — Suburban Chemo Orders............... 47a
Appendix P — National Study Commission Cytoxic
| PUTT CEPT Cee Oe Ce ee ee 48a
Appendix Q — Employment Agreement — Night
| eee TC eee VETPLEUL eT See ee 63a
Appendix R — State Board of Pharmacy Letter.......... 65a
Appendix S — Civil Rights Restoration Act ............ 67a
Appendix T — Affidavit of Welch. .............+000-. 78a
Appendix U — Affidavit of Finnerty...............-. 80a
Appendix V — Counseling Memo Robert Johnson........ 83a
Appendix W — Order, December 23, 1988............. 85a
Appendix X — Clerk’s Certificate Case Papers........... 87a
Appendix Y — Response to Supplemental Statement,
FY TB, WSGB. ccccunessecevesweeaeaecnawace 107a
Appendix Z — Order No, 89-1412, August 14,1989 ..... 109a
Appendix AA — Human Resources Document ......... ll4a
Appendix BB — District of Columbia No. 89-7082....... 119a
Appendix CC — Order Denying Rehearing, November 29,
(112)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES =e
Cases:
A.H. Robins Co, v. Dept. of Health, 130 Cal. Rptr.
OE ee ee eee 16
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannous, 438 U.S. 234
Lah he So bb ek 6 6 6 06.0 0 0 4 0 8 88 14
Birmingham, Alabama Firefighters. ...........2044.. 6,7
Board of Directors of Rotary International, et al v
Rotary Club of Duarte, et al., Supreme Court
ee ee 13
Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564,92S.Ct.2701...... 9
Bob Jones University v. United States, Docket No. 81-3,
CR Ee 13
Bowen v, City of New York, Supreme Court Docket No.
eee ee EES a ae ee ee 9
Burning Tree v. Maryland, Suprerne Court Docket No.
re ee ee 6, 14
Civil Rights Restoration Act, Public Law 100-259.......... 5
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authonty, 365 U.S.
ee 13
Cooper v, Federal Reserve Bank (1984, U.S.), 104 S.Ct.
i a ae 11
Edwards v. Bowing Verto! Co. (1983, CA 3 PA}, 104
EE re 10
Hammond v, North American Asb. Corb., 435 N.E.2d
ERI ee ee 16
Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88, 96 S.Ct.
EE ll
Heart of Atlanta Motel %. United States, 379 U.S.
IE Oe 12
Hishon v, King, 467 U.S. 69 (1984) ............... .. 69
Handlon »v, Billerville, 4 NJ. 99, 71 A.2d €24, 16
a A IS 12
Ingram v, Madison Square Garden, (1979, SD NY), 482
EE OSS eee eee eee Cee 10
(wv)
Cases, continued: Page
Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 232 L.ED.2d
ie: ee ee 6 6 oho oe a ee ee ee es 12
Laskaris v, Thornburgh, (1984, CA 3 PA), 105 S.Ct. 260 .... 10
Lundgren v. Freeman, 397 F.2d 104 (CA 9, 1962)......... 14
Manuel v, International Harvester Co. (1900, ND III.)
2 OS Peo ee OS TER OEE RLS 11
Marsh v, Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946).............0.. 13
Mathis v. Opportunities Industrialization Center, Inc.,
Se fe Se 9). er ere ee ee a 11
McDaniel v, Board of Public Instruction, Fla, 39
A Serre ea eee ee ee eee Trcreyee ree 9
Moore v, Sun Oil Co., (1980, CA 6 Ohio), 636 F.2d
| ee rere ea y eae ee ea oe a ee ae a 10
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65-66
DP. ccdacep awe Ree pee ee Rt Rew ea tute ce ee 6s 5
ne so se tO babe ee ewe ek wee ee ee
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 109 S.Ct. 2363 (1989) ....5
Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976) ...... 2 cee vees 7
Setser v, Novark Invest Co, (1981, CA 8 MO), 102 S.Ct.
ere eee ee ee ee ae ee eee ee ee ee ee 10
Shaare Tefila Congretion v. Cobb, Supreme Court Docket
oe ee ee are Vika es sea 4 9
Simpson Timber Co. v. Parks, 369 F.2d 324, 89 S.Ct.
se ff | ere ee ee ee oe ee eee
U.S. v. Metate Asbesto Corp., DC Ariz., 584 F. Supp.
8 EY ERR ere ee ee ie cee eee 16
Watson v, Forth Worth Bank & Trust, Supreme Court
SE TO OEE 6 oe cree eee an Rees 8 vere:
Whatley v. Skaggs Co., (1980, DC Col), 104 S.Ct. 349 ....,.10
Wofford v, Safeway Stores, Inc, (1978, N.D, Cal.) 78
i | ere TRENT RT AS Cee Tee ree eres
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. $56... 2... cc cccves ere
PRE CU eck os 2 6e ee See SO eee rr ee ert
Ce Sn OEE Kos he eee CRE SERTER EES CRE Te 13
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1989
-No.
JAMES GEORGE WALKER,
Petitioner,
U.
SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Respondents.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
AT RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
The petitioner, James G. Walker, respectfully requests
that a writ of certiorari issue to review the decision of
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Vir-
ginia entered in this case on September 19, 1989. The
Order denying the Petition for a rehearing was filed
Novernber 29, 1989.
OPINION BELOW
On March 25, 1988 the Fourth Circuit Court of Ap-
peals in No. 87-3177 Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part,
1
2
and Remanded for § 1981 the Opinion of the District
Court of Maryland at Baltimore. The Fourth Circuit
No. 87-3117 is printed in Appendix E at p. 15a The
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 89-1412 grant-
ing dismissal on § 1981 is printed in Appendix Z at
p. 109a.
JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS
The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28
U.S.C. § 1254. The petition is being docketed within 90
days of the denial of the petitioner’s petition for a re-
hearing on November 29, 1989.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND
STATUTES INVOLVED
This petition involves the Fifth, Fourteenth, Eighth,
Seventh Amendments of the United States Constitution;
the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution;
the Civil Rights Restoration Act—Public Law 100-259;
42 U.S.C. § 1981; 41 U.S.C. § 1982; Title VII Civil
Rights Act 1964; Diversity of Citizenship.
The pertinent parts are provided.
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be deprived of property without
due process of law.
Seventh Amendment:
In suits at common law, where the value in contro-
versy shall exceed twenty dollars, the night of tral
by jury shall be preserved.
Fourteenth Amendment:
Shall not deprive any person of property without
due process of law, nor deny the equal protection
of the law.
sitet
3
Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Public Law
100-259:
Private organization engaged in business of health
care and receiving Federal financial assistance is
barred from practicing discrimination.
Title 42, U.S.C. § 1981:
... Equal right...
Title 42, U.S.C. § 1982:
... Property Rights...
Title VII, Equal Employment Opportunity of 1964
Civil Rights Act:
... Racial discrimination...
Contract Clause—Article I, § 10:
Law impairing the obligation of Contracts
Diversity of Citizenship + Article III, § 2:
Controversies between citizens of Different states.
Eighth Amendment:
Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be in-
flicted.
STATEMENT
A. The Petitioner
On March 24, 1986 Petitioner James G. Walker sued
his former employer Suburban Hospital Association, et
al., on claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983,
and 1985; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 42
U.S.C. § 2002 et seq.; Fifth and Fourteenth Amend-
ments; claims for breach of contract and harmful expo-
sure to carcinogenics were brought also. He sought puni-
tive and compensatory damages. (The amended Com-
plaint and the Order to Amend are printed in the Ap-
pendix A and Appendix C at pages la, 4a.)
B. Proceeding Below
(1) On May 16, 1984, petitioner, a black male, signed
a contract with respondent Suburban as a night pharma-
cist. (Contract printed in Appendix Q, p. 63a-64a.)
The contract provided that Suburban would have to
provide petitioner with thirty days’ notice before dis-
missal. (2) On August 13, 1984 respondent Suburban
hired respondent Marchand, a white female, at a higher
salary than petitioner. Later, respondent Marchand was
given a retroactive pay raise. (3) On March 20, July 15,
May 30, and September 9, 1985 other white pharma-
cists were hired by respondent Suburban at higher pay
rates than the petitioner. The pharmacist hired Septem-
ber 9, 1985 did not have a Maryland Pharmacist License
at the time. Appendix R, p. 65a, confirms such. (4) On
September 23, 1985, petitioner wrote to respondent
Gary about the hazards of working with carcinogens
and about pay disparities. (Document printed in the Ap-
pendix J, p. 37a.) (5) On October 30, 1985 respon-
ent Marchand put an accusatory statement in petition-
er’s file (Appendix N, p. 46a.) Petitioner was not given
an opportunity to rebut the statement. (6) On January
8, 1986 respondent Johnson advised petitioner to place
codes on cards. Petitioner asked a technician to do it,
and she refused. When petitioner reported the incident
to respondent Williamson petitioner was told that peti-
tioner was not the technician’s boss and that petitioner
must code the cards. (7) On January 9, 1986 petitioner
met with respondents Gary and Williamson. Respondent
Gary refused to hear evidence about other pharmacists’
failure to code cards. Respondent Williamson then gave
petitioner a pre-prepared disciplinary document. (8) On
January 9, 1986 respondent Quinn was informed of the
incident of January 8. He “appeared to indicate” that
5
he and respondent Welch agreed with the actions of re-
spondents Gary and Williamson. (9) On February 5,
1986 respondent Hailu attempted to get petitioner to
sign a document concerning his job responsibilities. (10)
On February 19, 1986 respondent Johnson accused the
petitioner Of being incompetent. Respondent Johnson
had been involved in an IV Solution incident in which a
patient died four hours after being administered the said
IV Solution. Petitioner reminded respondent Johnson of
his involvement in the said IV Solution. (Document on
[IV Solution incident printed in Appendix H, p. 30a.)
(Tl) On February 21, 1986 respondent Johnson sus-
pended petitioner, and respondent Welch confirmed the
suspension. (12) Respondent Stewart is the Assistant
Administrator of Finance for respondent Suburban and
respondent Green is respondent Welch’s supervisor. (13)
Petitioner was not paid “night differential pay.”
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
The Court has an opportunity to clanfy 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 in Patterson v. McLean, behavior after contract,
with Mentor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65-
66 (1986), working in non-hostile environment.
In the instant case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Ap-
peals in No. 89-1412 refused to remand in view of Pat-
terson v. McLean. The United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia No. 89-7032 remanded the
case for reconsideration in light of Patterson v. McLean
Credit Union, 109 S.Ct. 2363 (1989).
In the instant case respondent Suburban is in viola-
tion of Public Law 100-259 “Civil Rights Restoration
Act”—receiving Federal Funds but practicing racial dis-
crimination in employment. In Supreme Court Docket
6
No. 88-1970, Burning Tree v. Maryland, which parallels
the instant case—tax exempt institution practicing dis-
crimination—the Court denied certiorari for Burning
Tree October 3, 1989.
The tenet of law enunciated in Hishon v. King, 467
U.S. 69 (1984), “doling out benefits in a discriminatory
manner,” is violated by respondent Suburban. Petitioner
did not receive “night shift differential.’”’ White nurses
received “night shift differential.’’ In the Birmingham,
Alabama Firefighters Case blacks who had less seniority
could not be promoted over whites. In the instant case,
the petitioner had more seniority at Suburban than the
whites who were paid higher base salaries than he.
I. CONSTITUTIONAL TENETS. THIS CASE
RAISES ISSUES ARISING FROM AN INSTI.
TUTION RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDS AND
PRACTICING RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.
A. INSTITUTION GIVES PRETEXTUAL REAS-
ONS FOR DISCRIMINATING AGAINS THE
PETITIONER.
Respondent Suburban raises the pretext of education
and experience. Pursuant to Patterson v. McLean, peti-
tioner does not have to prove that he is more qualified
than the white pharmacists paid more base salary than
he, with less seniority than he. However, the petitioner
has three college degrees: B.S. in Zoology, B.S. in Phar-
macy, and J.D. in Law. More training is required to re-
ceive a J.D. Degree than is required to receive a Pharm.
D. Degree. Personnel List dated October 23, 1985
(printed in Appendix M at p. 44a) gives pay informa-
tion, etc. It can be determined that persons who had
neither a Pharm.D. Degree nor a J.D. Degree are receiv-
7
ing higher pay. Therefore, it can be concluded that a
Pharm.D. Degree was not a prerequisite for advance-
ment. To require the same for the petitioner is an act of
discrimination. (Patterson did not overturn Runyon.)
With reference to experience, the petitioner has
worked in the Pharmacy Department of a hospital since
1980, from pharmacy technician to licensed pharmacist.
Pursuant to Policy statement dated 5-27-82, seniority is
a consideration for promotion (printed in Appendix K at
page 39a). As in the Birmingham, Alabama Firefighters
Case, blacks who had less seniority could not be pro-
moted over the whites who had more seniority. The
same tenet of Law should prevail in the instant case for
the petitioner.
The pretext is continued further by the apparent per-
jured testimony of respondents Welch (App. T, p. 78a)
and Finnerty (App. U, p. 80a). From the Documents,
Barbara J. Dowd, a white Pharmacist, was hired 9-9-85.
Her base salary was higher than the petitioner. On 9-9-85
Barbara J. Dowd did not possess a Maryland Pharmacist
License. A Document from the Maryland Board of Phar-
macy, dated November 16, 1988 states: “Ms. Dowd ap-
plied for a Maryland Pharmacist License on 11-8-85 and
became authorized to practice pharmacy 11-20-85, ” The
Affidavit, October 13, 1988, of respondent Welch, page
3, paragraph 8d: “Ms Dowd held a pharmacy license
from Ohio but did not begin work at Suburban until she
made application to convert her Ohio license to a Mary-
land license.” This Statement of respondent Welch con-
flicts with the Document of the Pharmacy Board of
Maryland. Interrogatory No. 23 to Finnerty: “From
April 1, 1984 to May 31, 1986 was, at any time, a white
person hired as a Pharmacist without possessing a Mary-
land Pharmacy License? (hired at Suburban and worked
8
without a Maryland Pharmacy License)’’ Response to
Interrogatory 23: ‘“‘No.”’ This Response of respondent
Finnerty conflicts with the Document of the Maryland
Pharmacy Board. Moreover, another white pharmacist
with more seniority admitted that he was unable to do
the work. Even with a reduced salary, the said base sal-
ary of the said pharmacist remained higher than that of
the petitioner. Therefore, from every indication the
petitioner was being discriminated against and being
exploited.
The pretext continues with the “night shift differen-
tial” being paid to nurses and not to the petitioner.
From a Document captioned SHIFT DIFFERENTIALS,
dated 5-14-84 (printed in Appendix L, p. 42a):
‘“*3. An Employee who is scheduled to work 10:00
P.M. to 6:30 A.M. would be paid 8 hours of
Night Differential.”
The pretext alleges nurse shortage. However, from a
Document captioned HUMAN RESOURCES, dated
October 5, 1989 (printed in Appendix AA, p. 114a),
brought to the attention of the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals, is highlighted: “‘There is a Nationwide shortage
of Pharmacists working in hospitals. Pharmacists are
among the top 5 most difficult Hospital Employees to
recruit and retain according to a 1988 ‘American Hospi-
tal Association Survey.’ ”’ Starting salaries of Hospital
Pharmacists are between 5 and 10 thousand dollars less
than Pharmacists employed in Retail Business. (The
petitioner had both Hospital and Retail experience but
was paid less than the white Pharmacists.) When Phar-
macists are freed from non-clinical tasks, they are able
to devote more time to clinical tasks (without the neces-
sity of a Pharm.D. Degree). The shortage of Nurses does
9
not affect the quality of patient care according to 67%
of 1,159 Health Care Chief Executive Officers. From
the foregoing it is seen that not only was the petitioner
discriminated against but that respondent Suburban vio-
lated its own policy. The tenet of Law enunciated in
Hishon v. King, 104 S.Ct. 2229 (1984) is applicable: “A
benefit that is part and partial of the employment rela-
tionship, even though it is not required by express or
implied contract may not be doled out in a discrimina-
tory fashion.”
The instant case is parallel to the tenet of Law enun-
ciated in McDantel v. Board of Public Instruction for
Escambia County, Fla., 39 F. Supp. 638, July 3, 1941.
In McDaniel the policy of paying Negro teachers at a
lower rate thar, white teachers was considered a denial
of equal protection of the laws. One of the Attorneys in
McDaniel was Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall.
In Bowen v. City of New York, Supreme Court Dock-
et No. 84-1983 decided June 2, 1986, the Court held
Federal Courts are not always required to defer to ad-
ministrative agencies “‘where the equities” require judi-
cial intervention. The Bowen Decision provides a by-
pass of exhausting administrative remedies. Therefore,
the tenets of Law enunciated in various Constitutional
Issues can be asserted directly.
In the instant case, Fourth Circuit No. 87-3117 re-
manded for § 1981 and determined the non-exclusivity
of Title VII. Pursuant to Shaare Tefila Congregation v.
Cobb, Supreme Court Docket No. 85-2156, Decided
May 18, 1987, a remand should also have been made for
42 U.S.C. § 1982. “Property” denotes a broad range of
interest. Therefore, “‘salary” is also a “property.” Board
of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701.
10
In Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, Supreme
Court Docket No. 86-6139, Decided June 29, 1988, the
Court concluded that disparate impact analysis may be
app lied to a discretionary promotion system. Statistical
data may be a determining factor for proving racial dis-
crimination in employment. The statistic is 100% against
the petitioner in the instant case. (All the white phar-
macists with less seniority getting more base pay than
the petitioner.)
In action alleging racial discrimination in employment
under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, petitioner is entitled to jury
trial as he seeks compensatory and punitive damages.
(a) Moore v. Sun Oil Co. (1980, CA 6 Ohio), 636
F.2d. 154
(b) Setser v. Nocack Invest. Co. (1981, CA 8 Mo),
102 S.Ct. 615
(c) Edwards v. Boeing Vertol Co. (1983, CA 3 Pa),
104 S.Ct. 3566
(d) Laskaris v. Thornburgh (1984, CA 3 Pa), 105
S.Ct. 260
The Seventh Amendment preserves the right of a jury
trial.
Employment discrimination action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 can be based on proof of either ‘‘disparate
treatment” or “disparate impact.” Jngram v. Madison
Square Garden (1979, SD NY), 482 F. Supp. 414.
Proof of employment discrimination under Title VII on
theory of disparate treatment is sufficient to establish
proof of liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Whatley v.
Skaggs Co. (1980, DC Col), 104 S.Ct. 349.
Individual employee of Corporate Respondent may
be liable in action alleging employment discrimination
under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for same action that allegedly
11
gave rise to Corporate liability. Manuel v. International
Harvester Co. 1900, ND Ill), 502 F. Supp. 45.
Fact that employee charging race discrimination was
replaced with individual of same race may not rebut
prima facie case of discrimination, replacement may
have been made to cover discrimination. Wofford v.
Safeway Stores, Inc. (1978, ND Cal), 78 F.R.D. 460.
The tenet of Law enunciated in Wofford refutes respond-
ent Suburban’s assertion of hiring a black at a higher sal-
ary shows race neutral. The said black worked for a
short period of time at Suburban. The Record shows
that the said Black had difficulty with respondent John-
son (Appendix V, p. 00a). This is another pretext of re-
spondent Suburban. The said Black was having trouble
in IV; Eric Johnson was in charge of IV.
Judgment in class action determining that employer
did not engage in general pattern or practice of racial
discrimination against certified class of employees does
not preclude class member from maintaining civil action
alleging individual claim of racial discrimination. Cooper
v. Federal Reserve Bank (1984, US), 104 S.Ct. 2794.
A District Court has jurisdiction to consider matters
of due process under the 5th Amendment applicable to
private conduct. Mathis v. Opportunities Industnaliza-
tion Centers, Inc. (CA 9 Cal), 545 F.2d. 97. The due
process clause of the Fifth Amendment authorizes tradi-
tional equal protection of federal rules, and therefore
the clause has a substantive as well as a procedural as-
pect.
Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88, 48 L.Ed.2d
495,96 S.Ct. 189.
Petitioner’s due process rights were denied when re-
spondents did not give him an opportunity to present
12
evidence vindicating him. A “‘hearing’’ is the hearing of
evidence and arguments. Handlon v. Belleville, 4 N.J.
99, 71 A.2d 624, 16ALR.2d 1115. Right to introduce
evidence. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 232
L.Ed.2d 404, 89 S.Ct. 1843, reh. den. 396 U.S. 869, 24
L.Ed. 123, 90 S.Ct. 35. )
An act of conspiracy was committed by respondents
Marchand, Williamson, and Johnson in the writing of
and putting an accusatory letter in a file on the petition-
er without first giving the petitioner an opportunity to
rebut the same. An act of conspiracy was committed by
respondents Williamson and Johnson by their ordering
petitioner to code when not demanding the white phar-
macists to do the same. An act of conspiracy was com-
mitted by respondents Williamson and Gary when at a
meeting with the petitioner and them, a disciplinary
paper was given to the petitioner. The indication is that
the said disciplinary paper had been prepared before the
meeting. The outcome had been pre-determined. Due
process was violated. The evidence of the petitioner was
not permitted. Respondents Hailu, Williamson, and
Johnson committed an act of conspiracy by attempting
to compel the petitioner to sign some document. Re-
spondents Williamson and Johnson told respondent
Hailu to compel petitioner to sign the said document.
Respondents Finnerty, Quinn, Welch, Stewart, and
Green become conspirators by aiding and abetting the
actions of the other respondents. Respondents Finnerty,
Stewart, and Welch conspired to pay the petitioner a
lower base salary than white pharmacists.
A pnivate enterprise is impressed with a 14th Amend-
ment duty by Interstate Commerce Commission regula-
tion: goods transported over different state roads. Heart
of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964).
2 eee
13
A 14th Amendment duty is impressed when the private
activity performs an exclusive public function. Marsh v.
Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946). When there is ‘‘signifi-
cant state involvement,” the 14th Amendment is applic-
able to private discrimination. Burton v. Wilmington
Parking Authonty, 365 U.S. 715 (1961).
Respondent Johnson was involved in an IV Solution
involving Amphotericin with NACL 0.9%, the wrong
combination. The patient died four hours after being
administered the said IV Solution. Respondent Johnson
was not fired for the said incident. He remained in a
position of authority. It was he who “constructively
fired’’ the petitioner. By respondent Suburban permit-
ting respondent Johnson to remain in a position of au-
thority after his involvement in the said IV Solution
incident, created ‘“‘disparate impact’’ and ‘disparate
treatment’’ against the petitioner. The petitioner be-
came a victim of “cruel and unusual punishment,” a
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Punishment given
to petitioner same as that given to respondent Johnson.
In Bob Jones Unwwersity v. United States, Docket
No. 81-3, Argued October 12, 1982, Decided May 24,
1983, the Court held:
‘It would be wholly incompatible with the concepts
underlying tax exemption to grant tax-exempt status to
racially discriminatory private educational entities.’’ The
tenet of Law enunciated in Bob Jones is applicable to
the instant case. William T. Coleman, Jr., pro se, by invi-
tation of the Court, 456 U.S. 922, argued the Bod Jones
Cause aS amicus curtae urging affirmance. In Board of
Directors of Retary International, et al. v. Rotary Club
of Duarte, et al., Supreme Court Docket No. 86-421,
argued March 30, 1987, decided May 4, 1987, the Court
14 A
held: “The State has compelling interests in eliminating
discrimination . . . .”’ In Burning Tree Club, et al. v.
State of Maryland, et al., Supreme Court Docket No.
88-1970, the Court denied Certiorari, thus denied ‘‘free-
dom of association” to practice discrimination—sexual.
The above Decisions make it abundantly clear that pri-
vate institutions practicing discrimination are prohib-
ited from receiving federal financial assistance. The Civil
Rights Restoration Act specifically denies Federal assis-
tance to institutions practicing discrimination. The Civil
Rights Restoration Act reinforces the case of the peti-
tioner.
B. INSTITUTION VIOLATES THE CONTRACT
OF PETITIONER
The contract clause remains a part of the written
Constitution. The contract clause is applicable to private
obligations.
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannous, 438 U.S. 234
(1978). When the respondents suspended the petitioner,
his Contract was violated. The Contract has no provision
for suspension. The suspension was therefore a “‘con-
structive firing.”” The Contract provides for a 30-day
notice. By breaching petitioner’s Contract, respondents’
actions became intentional malicious, and grossly negli-
gent. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Punitive
and Compensatory damages with no duty to mitigate.
Lundgren v. Freeman, 307 F.2d 104 (CA 9, 1962).
The statement in the Contract “I enjoy all benefits of
full time employees .. . .” covers behavior before the
warren cal
15
Contract, during the Contract, and after the Contract.
Benefits are:
1. Retirement Annuity
2. Social Security
3. Tuition Assistance
4. Sick Leave
5. Bereavement Leave
6. Life Insurance
7. Health Insurance
8. Work in non-hostile environment
9. Equality of pay
10. Non-discrimination
11. Seniority preference for promotion
12. Night differential pay
The behavior is based on the original Contract.
Il. INSTITUTION EXPOSED PETITIONER TO
CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCES
Documentary evidence shows that respondents oper-
ated the Chemo Hood (biological safety cabinet) not in
agreement with the National Study Commission on Cy-
toxic Exposure Recommendations for handling Cyto-
toxic Agents (Appendix P, p. 48a) (Appendix O, p. 47a
Chemo Orders of Suburban). Moreover, the petitioner
was injured by the Chemo Hood at Suburban, necessita-
ting emergency treatment at Suburban. Respondent Sub-
urban failed to operate the biological safety cabinet
with the blower on 24 hours per day for seven days per
week. Respondent Suburban failed to provide dispos-
able garments. Therefore, being exposed to Carcinogenic
Agents by respondent Suburban, petitioner is entitled to
damages predicated on “seriousness” of future conse-
quences.
16
The instant case is analogous to:
(a) Agent Orange Issue, Washington Post, September
18, 1986
(b) Asbestos Cases, Parade Magazine, October 12,
1986
(1) U.S. v. Metate Asbestos Corp., DC Ariz, 584
F.Supp. 1143, 1146
(2) Hammond V. North Amencan Asb. Corp., 435
N.E.2d 540
(c) W.R. Grace & Co. Polluting water supply with
Carcinogenic Agents. Toxic waste settlement reached.
Wash. Post, Sept. 23, 1986
(d) Ortho v. Wells, Supreme Court let stand damages
awarded in birth defects. Wash. Post, September 23,
1986.
(e) A.H. Robins Co. v. Dept. of Health, 130 Cal.
Rptr. 901, 87 S.Ct. 1110
Handler of product is entitled to recover for injury
sustained while doing act that is both foreseeable and
necessary in putting product to its ultimate intended
use.
Simpson Timber Co. v. Parks, 369 F.2d 324, 89 S.Ct.
130, 393 U.S. 858
III. FOR JUDICIAL ECONOMY ALL ISSUES
SHOULD BE HEARD BY A SINGLE COURT,
ISSUES HAVING ARISES FROM COMMON
NUCLEUS OF CIRCUMSTANCES
The Doctrine of Pendent Jurisdiction, 383 U.S. 715,
is applicable in the instant case. Moreover, respondents
shifted more carcinogenic preparations to the night
shift on which petitioner worked. —
17
The position of Night Shift Pharmacist automatically
becomes one of pre-eminence. He is the only licensed
pharmacist on duty for the said period of time. Without
his being on duty with his license, the pharmacy depart-
ment could not legally dispense medications. Respond-
ent Suburban, by paying petitioner a lower base salary
than the said white pharmacists, exploited the petitioner
as well as illegally discriminated against him.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in assum-
ing no pharmacy shortage. A recent document sub-
mitted for the Rehearing Petition contradicts the as-
sumption of no pharmacy shortage. The Fourth Circuit
erred by not having “seniority” system prevail. Neither
a Pharm.D. nor a J.D. were prerequisites for advance-
ment for some people. To require a Pharm.D. Degree
for the petitioner is discisminatory against him. The
District Court of Maryland and the Fourth Circuit erred
by not accepting the Statement of the Board of Phar-
macy of Maryland concerning the date that one of the
white pharmacists became licensed to practice pharmacy
in Maryland.
Other Black pharmacists have found it necessary to
sue respondent Suburban.
Night Differential Pay is based on the time of work.
Physician Veronica Prego with AIDS takes her case to
trial—Wash. Post, January 7, 1990. She is suing for 175
million dollars.
18
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant
this petition and review the decision of the Fourth
Court of Appeals on the issues raised herein.
Respectfully submitted,
James G. WALKER, R.Ph., }.D.
1412 Whittier Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20012
(202) 723-0593
(301) 565-5960
Petitioner Pro Se.
January 31, 1990
a es
la
APPENDIX A
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Civil No. JH-86-962
JAMES GEORGE WALKER
v.
SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et al.
ORDER
Having reviewed the record in the above-styled com-
plaint, filed pro se, fee paid, on March 24, 1986, it is this
7th day of April, 1986,
ORDERED:
1) That the Clerk withhold issuance of process until
the plaintiff files an amended complaint in conformity
with paragraph (2), below.
2) That plaintiff file an amended complaint, with
the following particular changes:
(a) deletion of paragraphs 1(b) and l(c) — references
to superseded statutes;
(b) clarification of paragraph 1(d) — declaration of
basis of jurisdiction;
(c) deletion of paragraphs 1(e) and 1(f) — reference
to sections of the federal criminal code which can only
be prosecuted by the Office of the United States Attor-
ney; and
(d) clarification of paragraph 1(h) and the complaint
in general — reference to Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000 et
seq.), where there is no allegation of the basis of discrim-
ination (e.g., race, sex, religion, national origin, etc.), nor
any indication that plaintiff has timely processed these
2a
complaints through the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission or an appropriate state agency. This amend-
ed complaint shall be filed on or before May 4, 1986, fail-
ing which this case will be dismissed without prejudice.
3) That the Clerk mail a copy of this Order to plaintiff
forthwith.
/s/ Joseph C. Howard
Joseph C, Howard
United States District Judge
[Filed April 8, 1986]
3a
APPENDIX B
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND
AT BALTIMORE .
CA No. JH-86-962
1, James George Walker,
Plaintiff
Vv.
1. Suburban Hospital Association, et al
Defendants
FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
1. The Amended Complaint is hereby filed.
2. Plaintiff prays that the processing of the Amended
Complaint will go forth immediately.
3, The need to make discovery as soon as possible is
essential.
POINTS AND AUTHORITY
1. Title 28, USC, Section 1653
2, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 26, Rule 31,
Rule 32, Rule 33, Rule 34.
/s/ James G, Walker
James G. Walker, R.PE.., J.D.
Personally delivered to the Office of the Clerk,
April 16th, 1986
/s/ James G. Walker
James G. Walker
[Filed April 16, 1986]
4a
APPENDIX C
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND
AT BALTIMORE
CA NO. JH-86-962
1. James George Walker
1412 Whittier Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20012
Resident (202) 723-0593
7849 Eastern Avenue
Silver Spring, Md. 20910
Business (301) 565-5960
Plaintiff
1. Suburban Hospital Association, et al
8600 Old Georgetown Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
2. Joan Finerty
Suburban Hospital
8600 Old Georgetown Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
3. Paul Quinn
Suburban Hospital
8600 Old Georgetown Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
4, James Gary
Suburban Hospital
SS
10.
ll,
5a
8600 Old Georgetown Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20914
. Bernadette Welch
Suburban Hospital
8600 Old Georgetown Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
. Charles Stewart
Suburban Hospital
8600 Old Georgetown Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
. Lloyd Green
Suburban Hospital
8600 Old Georgetown Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
. Dalton Williamson
3108 Brightseed Road
Landover, Maryland
. Eric E, Johnson
9809 Whiskey Run
Laurel, Maryland 20702
Heidi Christ] Marchand
10225 Kensington Parkway
Kensington, Maryland
Aester Hailu
8812 Lanier Drive
Silver Spring, Maryland
Defendants
6a
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
RESULTING FROM: DISCRIMINATION, HARASS-
MENT, UNNECESSARY EXPOSURE TO HARMFUL
CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCES, BREACH OF CON-
TRACT; AND TO RECOVER BACK PAY
1. Jurisdiction of this cause arises under: (a) Title 42,
United States Code Section 1983 - Civil Actions for
deprivation of rights.
(b)
(i)
Title 42, USC, Section 1981, Section 1982,
and Section 1985 - Equal rights, Property rights,
Conspiracy to interfcve with civil rights.
Title 28, USC, Section 1331 - Federal Question,
District Court has jurisdiction. (Awarding dam-
ages for violation of Civil Rights?)
Title 28, USC, Section 1343(a)(1)(2)(3)(4) - Re-
cover damages.
Title 28, USC, Section 1391(b) - Venue
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States - Due process of law, equal
protection of the law.
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States - Taking property without due
process.
Title VII, Equal Employment Opportunity of
1964 Civil Rights Act (Title 42, USC, Section
2000) - Racial discrimination: Plaintiff, a black
pharmacist, paid a lower salary than white phar-
macists. (District Court is empowered to separ-
ate substance from form.)
General Equity powers of the Court.
2. Plaintiff, James G. Walker was hired by Suburban as
a Pharmacist April 29, 1984.
3. On May 16, 1984 the Contract for his position as
Night Pharmacist at Suburban was signed. (Plaintiff’s
Contract)
7a
4, The Contract specifies a “minimum” of 30 days
notice for discontinuing the service of Plaintiff by Sub-
urban.
5. On October 30, 1985 Defendant Heidi Marchand
placed an accusatory statement in a file being maintained
on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had no opportunity to de-
fend against this action or to rebutt the contents of the
statement.
6. Defendant Marchand, a white Pharmacist, was hired
August 13, 1984 at a salary higher than the salary of the
Plaintiff.
7, Defendant Marchand was given a retroactive pay
raise dating back to October 21, 1984.
8. A white Pharmacist was hired March 20, 1985 at a
salary higher than the salary of the Plaintiff.
9. Another white Pharmacist was hired May 30, 1985
at a salary higher than the salary of the Plaintiff.
10. Another white Pharmacist was hired July 15, 1985
at a salary higher than the salary of the Plaintiff.
11. Another white person was hired September 9,
1985 as a Pharmacist at a salary higher than the salary of
the Plaintiff. Apparently, this person did not have a
Maryland Pharmacy License at the time of the said
hiring,
* * * The actions taken by Suburban in Paragraphs 6
through 11 violates the tenor of Law enunciated in Mc-
Daniel v. Board of Public Instruction for Escambia
County, et al, Fla, 39 F. Supp. 638.
12, On or about September 23, 1985 the Plaintiff
wrote Defendant James Gary concerning the hazardous
working conditions with carcinogenic substances, the
apparent disparity in pay among the Pharmacists, and the
8a
disparity in night differential pay for some workers at
Suburban and evening differential pay for the Night Phar-
macist,
13. On January 8, 1986 about 7:30 A.M, Defendant
Eric Johnson came out of the Sterile Process Room (IV)
and said to the Plaintiff: ‘‘we are cracking down on cod-
ing. Here,’’ (Codes for the said card were in the room
from which he had just departed), The Plaintiff was writ-
ing P.O. orders in the patient’s profiles at the time. A
white technician, who happened to be in the P.O. room
at the time was told by the Plaintiff to put the code on
the card. She said ‘‘no”, “I am in the other room.”’
14. Defendant Dalton Williamson was told of the
sequence of events in paragraph 13. Williamson said to
the Plaintiff, ‘“‘you must put the code on the card and
you are not the technician’s supervisor and will not be
her supervisor as long as I am here.”
15. On January 9, 1986 a meeting was held among the
Plaintiff and Defendants Gary and Williamson concerning
the events in paragraphs 13 and 14.
16. Defendant James Gary refused to examine evi-
dence concerning other pharmacists not executing code
cards.
* * * By charging the Plaintiff and not charging
others, the tenor of law enunciated in, Yick Wo v, Hop-
kins, 118 U.S. 356, is violated.
17, At the end of the said meeting in the office of
Defendant James Gary, Defendant Williamson gave the
Plaintiff a document. This document had been prepared
before the said meeting.
* * * Because this contumely document had been pre-
pared before the said meeting, Due Process was violated.
The outcome has been pre-determined.
UR te ed
9a
18. By Plaintiff’s document dated January 9, 1986,
Defendant Paul Quinn was informed of the events in par-
agraphs 13 through 17.
19. By Plaintiff’s letter January 24, 1986, Defendant
Quinn was informed that his response was totally lacking
in specificity.
20. Defendant Quinn appeared to be indicating that he
and Defendant Bernadette Welch agreed with the action
of pharmacy management.
21. With no response to Plaintiff’s letter of January
24, 1986, Plaintiff informed Defendant Joan Finerty
by letter February 7, 1986, that in due time a Complaint
would be filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.
22. On February 5, 1986, Defendant Aester Hailu
attempted to compel the Plaintiff to sign a document on
responsibilities.
23, On February 19, 1986, Defendant Eric Johnson
remarked to the Plaintiff “you are incompetent.” Plain-
tiff James G. Walker reminded Defendant Eric Johnson
of the incident in which Defendant Eric Johnson is
alleged to have prepared on May 26, 1985, Amphotericin
with NACL 0.9% The patient died four hours after being
administered the said solution.
24, On February 21, 1986, Defendant Eric Johnson
gave Plaintiff a document indicating suspension of the
Plaintiff. Defendant Bernadette Welch confirmed the sus-
pension of the Plaintiff.
* * * This suspension is a violation of the Contract of
the Plaintiff.
25. On February 21, 1986 Plaintiff was informed that
Defendant Charles Stewart is Assistant Administrator in
10a
charge of Finance and that Defendant Lloyd Green is the
Supervisor of Defendant Bernadette Welch.
26. Plaintiff was not paid night differential pay: others
were,
27. Factual documentation became known to the
Plaintiff in December 1985, during the moving displace-
ment in the Pharmacy Department.
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully prays for the follow-
ing relief:
1. That Suburban Hospital Association award Plaintiff
one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000.00) in puni-
tive and compensatory damages for having discriminated
against him and for the seriousness of future conse-
quences of his being exposed to hazardous carcinogenic
substances.
2. That Suburban Hospital Association remain liable
for the life span of the Plaintiff for any and all payments
for the cancer that he may come down with.
3. That Suburban Hospital Association remain liable
for the life span of any and all offspring of the Plaintiff
for any and all payments for the cancer that they may
come down with,
4. That Suburban Hospital Association award Plaintiff
fifty uiousand dollars ($50,000.00) in back pay, having
discriminated against him in salary, night differential, and
breaching the Contract.
* * * Hishon v, King, 104 S.Ct. 2229 (1984)
“a benefit that is part and partial of the employment
relationship, even though it is not required by express or
implied contract may not be doled out in a discrimina-
tory fashion.”
5. That Defendant Dalton Williamson award the Plain-
tiff fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000.00) for punitive
lla
and compensatory damages for harassment, conspiracy
to deprive Plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities.
6. That Defendant Eric Johnson award Plaintiff fifteen
million dollars ($15,000,000.00) for punitive and com-
pensatory damages for harassment, conspiracy to deprive
Plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities.
7. That Defendant Heidi Marchand award the Plaintiff
fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000.00) for punitive and
compensatory damages for harassment, conspiracy to
deprive Plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities.
8. That defendant Aester Hailu award Plaintiff fifteen
million dollars for punitive and compensatory damages
for harassment, conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of rights,
privileges, and immunities.
9. That Defendants: Joan Finerty, Paul Quinn, James
Gary, Bernadette Welch, Charles Stewart, and Lloyd
Green each award the Plaintiff fifteen million dollars
($15,000,000.00) for their failure to prevent and for
their aiding and abetting: harassment, discrimination,
conspiracy, unequal application of Hospital rules, breach
of contract, and hazardous working conditions.
10. For such other, further, and different relief as the
Court may seem just and property.
Respectfully submitted,
James George Walker, R.Ph., J.D.
Pro Se
12a
APPENDIX D
[Filed May 26, 1987]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Civil No. JH-86-962
JAMES GEORGE WALKER
Plaintiff
v.
SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM
Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s pro se civil
rights complaint alleging racial discrimination and
brought against Suburban Hospital Association and
others. The immediate matters for consideration are
plaintiff’s objections to two Reports and Recommenda-
tions issued by United States Magistrates Daniel E. Klein,
Jr. on February 27, 1987, and Deborah K. Chasanow, on
April 29, 1987.
Upon review of what appears to be thirty-seven objec-
tions to the reports of the Magistrates, the Court notes
that none defeat the Magistrates’ findings that 42 U.S.C.
§1982 is inapplicable to employment discrimination;
that plaintiff’s Title VII claim must first be brought
before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis-
sion for this Court to have jurisdiction; that defendants
are not state actors regardless of the receipt of the Hill-
Burton Act or medicare and medicaid funds; that Title
VII provides an exclusive remedy for employment dis-
crimination; that the contract clause is a limit upon the
state and not private actors; and that plaintiff fails to
l3a
state a jurisdictional basis for his tort claim. Accord-
ingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommen-
dations of the Magistrates by separate Order.
/s/ Joseph C. Howard
_ Joseph C, Howard
United States District Judge
Date: May 22, 1987
| hibit 8 vishal =iees z ‘ Aipisses sisi 6 beet Rt tent cole ic aa ie ee a ot
}
l4a
[Filed May 26, 1987]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Civil No. JH-86-962
JAMES GEORGE WALKER,
Plaintiff
Vv.
SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants
ORDER
In accordance with the Court’s Memorandum of even
date adopting the Report and Recommendations of
Magistrates Daniel E. Klein, Jr. and Deborah K. Chas-
anow, it is this 22nd day of May, 1987, by the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, OR-
DERED:
1) That plaintiff’s claims based on 42 U.S.C. § §1981
and 1985(3) and plaintiff’s contract and tort claims BE,
and the same hereby ARE DISMISSED;
2) That partial summary judgment BE, and the same
hereby IS, GRANTED for the defendants as to plaintiff's
claims based on 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the fifth and four-
teenth amendments;
3) That plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. §1982 and Title VII
claims BE, and the same hereby ARE, DISMISSED; and
+) That the Clerk mail copies of the Court’s Memor-
andum and of this Order to all counsel of record.
/s/ Joseph C, Howard
Joseph C. Howard
United States District Judge
15a
APPENDIX E
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 87-3117
JAMES GEORGE WALKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION; JOAN
FINERTY; PAUL QUINN; JAMES GARY; BERNA-
; DETTE WELCH; CHARLES STEWART; LLOYD
GREEN; DALTON WILLIAMSON; ERIC E. JOHNSON;
HEIDI CHRISTL MARCHAND; AESTER HAILU,
Defendants-Appellees.
—
; Appeal from the United States District Court for the Dis-
| trict of Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph C. Howard, Dis-
trict Judge. (C/A No. 86-962)
Submitted: January 29,1988 Decided: March 25, 1988
Before HALL, PHILLIPS, and CHAPMAN, Circuit
Judges.
(James George Walker, Appellant Pro Se. John Gregory
Kruchko, Kathleen A. Talty, Kruchko & Fries, for
Appellees. )
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff James Walker sued his former employer, Sub-
urban Hospital Association, and ten other named defend-
ants on claims under 42 U.S.C. § §1981, 1982, 1983 and
1985; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
. $ §2000e et seg.; and the fifth and fourteenth amend-
. ments. He also brought pendent state claims for breach
of contract and harmful exposure to carcinogens. The
district court entered judgment for the defendants, and
l6a
Walker appeals. We affirm the judgment for the defend-
ants on the claims based on 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1982,
and 1985(3), Title VII and the fifth and fourteenth
amendments on the reasoning of the district court. How-
ever, for the reasons discussed below, we reverse the judg-
ment for the defendants on the §1981, contract, and tort
claims, and remand the case for further proceedings.
l. Exclusivity of Title VII
The district court ruled that Walker was barred from
bringing an action for race discrimination in employment
under 42 U.S.C. §1981 because Title VII provides the
exclusive remedy for discriminatory employment prac-
tices that allegedly violate rights set forth in Title VII.
There is a split in the decisions concerning whether a
suit under Title VII precludes a simultaneous suit under
§1981 based on the same operative facts. Some courts
adhere to the rule that unless separate and distinct rights
are being litigated, an aggrieved employee may not seek
relief by way of the concurrent assertion of a Title VII
claim and a claim based on a violation of §1981. See,
e.g., Watson v, Ft, Worth Bank and Trust, 798 F.2d 791,
794 n.4 (5th Cir. 1986); Tafoya v. Adams, 612 F. Supp.
1097 (D. Colo, 1985); Ramirez v, Burn, 607 F. Supp.
170 (S.D. Tex. 1984); Hudson v, Charlotte Country Club,
Inc., 535 F. Supp. 313 (W.D.N.C. 1982). The rationale
for the rule has been that when the factual setting of the
substantive claims of employment discrimination brought
under Title VII parallels that of the claims grounded on
§1981, a plaintiff should not be allowed to circumvent
the detailed provisions and structural integrity of Title
VII by asserting a concurrent action based on §1981.
Other courts, however, adhere to the view that an em-
ployee can pursue a cause of action under §1981 for pri-
vate employment discrimination despite the applicability
17a
of Title VII to the same conduct. See e.g., Mead v. Mer-
chants Fast Motorline Inc., 820 F.2d 1124 (10th Cir.
1987); Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998 (9th Cir.
1985); Gooding v. Warner-Lambert Co., 744 F.2d 354
(3d Cir. 1984); Gunby v. Pennsylvania Electric Co., 631
F. Supp. 782 (W.D. Pa, 1985); Evans v. Central of Geor-
gia Railroad Co., 619 F. Supp. 1364 (N.D. Ga. 1985).
We believe the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v.
Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454 (1975),
as explained in Brown v, General Services Administration,
425 U.S, 820 (1976), controls the issue® and permits the
§ 1981 cause of action asserted by Walker. See Keller v.
3 In support of its conclusion that Title VII provides the ex-
clusive remedy for discriminatory employment practices that vio-
late Title VII rights, the district court cites to Tafoya v, Adams,
612 F. Supp. 1097 (D. Colo, 1985) and Parson v, Kaiser Aluminum
Corp., 727 F.2d 473 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1243
(1984). In Tafoya the district court was concerned, inter alia, that
the litigants would use $1981 to bypass Title VII’s administrative
procedures and to bring time-barred claims. To the extent that the
district court concluded that plaintiffs should not be permitted to
“bypass” the procedure required under Title VII merely by includ-
ing a cause of action under § 1981, the Supreme Court in Johnson
acknowledged that the procedures for relief under § 1981 and Title
VII were at odds with each other and that the filing of a § 1981
suit would weaken the administrative process mandated by Title
VU. While sympathetic to this concern, the Court reasoned never-
theless, that these difficulties were the byproduct of Congress’
choice to make available multiple remedies against employment
discrimination,
The court in Parson ultimately traces its authority for the
proposition that Title VII preempts a concurrent $1981 action to
Rivera v. City of Witchita Falls, 665 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1982). In
Rivera, the Fifth Circuit held that consideration of §1981 and
$1983 claims, as alternative remedies, is only necessary if their
violation can be made out on different grounds from those avail-
able under Title VII. The court’s opinion offers no explanation
or citation for this proposition.
18a
Prince George’s County, 827 F.2d 952 (4th Cir. 1987).
In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that Title VII is
not the exclusive remedy for claims of employment
discrimination in the private sector and that an aggrieved
person could pursue remedies under Title VII and §1981
simultaneously. Johnson, 421 U.S. at 460-61. The
Court’s holding was derived primarily from an examina-
tion of the legislative history of Title VII, which demon-
strated that Congress intended to allow aggrieved persons
to independently pursue their rights under both Title VII
and other applicable state and federal statutes. The John-
son Court stated that:
Despite Title VII’s range and its design as a com-
prehensive solution for the problem of invidious dis-
crimination in employment, the aggrieved individual
clearly is not deprived of other remedies he possess-
es and is not limited to Title VII in his search for
relief.
Id, at 459. See also Alexander v, Gardner-Denver Co.,
415 U.S. 36, 48-49 (1974) (“Title VII was designed to
supplement, rather than supplant, existing laws and in-
stitutions relating to employment discrimination.”) The
Court concluded that “Congress clearly has retained
§1981 as a remedy against private employment discrim-
ination separate from and independent of the more elab-
orate and time-consuming procedures of Title VII.”* 421
U.S. at 466.
* although Johnson specifically holds only that a claimant’s
pursuit of administrative remedies under Title VII does not toll
the running of the limitations period for an associated action under
§ 1981, this Court has recognized Johnson as establishing the prin-
ciple that Title VII does not preempt an employment discrimina-
tion suit against a private employer brought under §1981. See
Keller v. Prince George’s County, 827 F.2d 952 (4th Cir. 1987).
19a
In Brown the Supreme Court held that, unlike a pr-
vate employee, a federal employee may not maintain a
§ 1981 suit against the United States based on a claim of
intentional discrimination in employment. 425 U.S. at
835. The Court distinguished Johnson noting as follows:
The Petitioner relies upon our decision in John-
son uv. Ratlway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454
(1975), for the proposition that Title VII did not
repeal pre-existing remedies for employment dis-
crimination. In Johnson the Court held that in the
context of private employment Title VII did not
pre-empt other remedies. But that decision is
inapposite here. In the first place, there were no
; problems of sovereign immunity in the context of
the Johnson case. Second, the holding in Johnson
rested upon the explicit legislative history of the
1964 Act which “ ‘manifests a congressional intent
to allow an individual to pursue independently his
rights under both Title VII and other applicable
state and federal statutes.’ ” Congress made clear
“ ‘that the remedies available to the individual under
Title VII are co-extensive with the indiv[i] dual’s
right to sue under the provisions of the Civil Rights
Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981, and that the two
procedures augment each other and are not mut-
ually exclusive.’ ’’ See also Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer
Co., 392 U.S. 409, 415-417 (1968). There is no
such legislative history behind the 1972 amend-
ments. Indeed, as indicated above, the congressional
understanding was precisely to the contrary.
| Id. at 833-34 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).
; We are of the opinion that, with respect to claims of
private employment discrimination, Johnson compels
the conclusion that Title VII does not provide the exclus-
. ive remedy and that plaintiff may seek relief under
a er
20a
§1981. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s dis-
missal of plaintiff’s §1981 claim.
2. The State Tort and Contract Claims
After disposing of the federal issues the district court
concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Walker’s con-
tract and tort claims. Walker claimed that the defendants
exposed him to carcinogens and suspended him in viola-
tion of his employment contract. Both claims derive
from the same employment context which gave rise to
the §1981 claim. As the state and federal claims derive
from a common nucleus of operative fact, should the
district court determine on remand that the §1981 claim
presents substantial federal issues, it would have pendent
jurisdiction to hear the state claims. United Mine Work-
ers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966). Accordingly, we
remand the state claims as well as the §1981 claim to the
district court. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately developed
in the materials before the Court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
REVERSEDIN PART
AND REMANDED
—e —
eben. — 00
ee ee er
2la
APPENDIX F
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND
AT BALTIMORE
C.A. No. JH-86-962
JAMES G. WALKER,
Plaintiff
Vv.
SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants
PROPOSED INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS UNDEP
RULE 26 AND RULE 34 AND RULE 33
Plaintiff James G. Walker requests defendant Joan Fin-
nerty to respond within 30 days to the following requests:
1. That defendant produce the following documents:
(a) Home addresses of all defendants
(b) Promotion policy signed by Joan Finnerty
5-27-82
(c) Resignation letter of Eric E. Johnson dated
5/21/85
(d) Document dated September 16, 1985 returned
to James Gary by James G. Walker concerning changes to
take place the Pharmacy
(e) Personnel List of Pharmacy delineated by Race
from April 1, 1984 to May 31, 1986 with ADJ, Hire,
Base Pay
(f) Letter of Heidi A. Christ] Marchand to Roberti
Conti dated January 28, 1985 concerning retroactive pay
October 15, 1984
22a
(g) Document granting Heidi Chnistl Marchand
retroactive pay dated 2/13/85
(h) Counseling Memo to Dalton Williamson dated
5/8/85
(i) Educational Assistance Request Form Z of Eric
Johnson dated 1/8/85
(j) Employment Agreement — Night Pharmacist —
signed by James G. Walker May 16, 1984
(k) Letter dated 10/30/85 of Heidi Marchand in
which the name of James G. Walker is mentioned
(1) Counseling Memo to Eric Johnson dated 5/2/85
indicating suspension of Eric Johnson for incorrect IV
fluid dispensed (Amphotericin in NACL 0.9% 250 ml)
(m) Report on IV Incident dated 5/3/85 about Am-
photericin in NACL 0.9% 250ml, concerning Eric John-
son
(n) List of pay roll of persons delineated by Race
receiving night differential pay from April 1, 1984 to
May 31, 1986
‘ (o) List of pay roll of persons delineated by Race
receiving evening differential pay from April 1, 1984 to
May 31, 1986
(p) File maintained on James G. Walker
(q) List of College Degrees delineated by Race of all
Pharmacy employees from April 1, 1984 to May 31,
1986
2. What performances did you take in any and all mat-
ters pertaining to James G. Walker?
3. Who advised you to take the said performances per-
taining to James G. Walker?
4. What is the definition of “night differential pay”’?
What is the definition of “‘evening differential pay’’?
wr
6. Does Suburban Hospital receive Federal Funds?
Pennee
ans
23a
Does Suburban Hospital receive State Funds?
Under what Acts does Suburban Hospital receive the
said funds?
Is defendant Eric Johnson still employed at Sub-
urban?
Is defendant Dalton Williamson still employed at
Suburban?
When did defendant Eric Johnson cease being em-
ployed at Suburban?
When did defendant Dalton Williamson cease being
employed at Suburban?
Why was the employment of defendants Eric John-
son and Dalton Williamson terminated?
From April 1, 1984 to May 31, 1986 what amount
of Federal Funds did Suburban receive?
From April 1, 1984 to May 31, 1986 what amount
of State Funds did Suburban receive?
For the said dates what is the percent of Federal
Funds received by Suburban?
For the said dates what is the percent of State
Funds received by Suburban?
Have any other defendants ceased being employed
at Suburban?
Why was defendant James Gary, a non Pharmacist,
placed as Acting Director of the Pharmacy Depart-
ment at Suburban?
While acting as Director of Pharmacy, did James
Gary reduce the salary of a white Pharmacist?
Why was the salary of the said Pharmacist reduced?
ro
i)
aa
24.
4B
26.
ns
28.
24a
Was the reduced salary of the said Pharmacist still
higher than the salary of Plaintiff James G. Walker?
(Base pay)
From April 1, 1984 to May 31, 1986 was at any
time a white person hired as Pharmacist without
possessing a Maryland Pharmacy License? (Hired at
Suburban and worked without the Md. License)
Was the salary of the said person without the Mary-
land Pharmacy License higher than the salary of
Plaintiff James G. Walker? (Base pay)
Were other white Pharmacists hired subsequent to
Plaintiff James G. Walker with base salaries higher
than the base salary of the plaintiff? (Each base sal-
ary of each white Pharmacist)
Did another white Pharmacist submit a letter to de-
fendant Dalton Williamson refusing to work in the
PO Section?
Was the salary of the said white Pharmacist reduced?
Was the salary of the said white Pharmacist greater
than salary of the plaintiff James G. Walker? (Base
pay)
This is to certify that the foregoing was mailed, post-
age prepaid June 2, 1986 to:
Bs
ho
Ms Joan Finnerty
8600 Old Georgetown Road
Suburban Hospital
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
. Law office of John G. Kruchko
28 West Alleghany Ave.
Suite 606
Baltimore, Md. 21204
pp ne utente Sek ae Senate bs Lobe
25a
/s/James George Walker R.Ph., J.D.
James G. Walker, R. Ph., J.D.
This is to certify that the foregoing was hand delivered
to: June 2, 1986
Ottice of Clerk
101 W. Lombard Street
United States District Court
Baltimore, Md.
/s/James George Walker, R.Ph., J.D.
James G, Walker, R. Ph., J.D.
26a
APPENDIX G
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND
AT BALTIMORE
CA No. JH-86-962
JAMES G. WALKER,
Plaintiff
Vv.
SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
JOAN FINNERTY TO ANSWER INTERROGATORIES
AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND FOR
SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT FINNERTY
FOR NOT ANSWERING AND NOT PRODUCING
THE SAID REQUESTS
Plaintiff's proposed Interrogatories and request for
production of Documents are for admissable evidence.
DOCUMENTS
l(a) Home addresses of all Defendants. The Docu-
ment “Suburban Hospital Association — Application For
Employment” should contain the requested information.
l(c) Resignation letter of Eric E. Johnson dated
5/21/85.
1(d) Document dated September 16, 1985, returned
to James Gary by James G. Walker concerning changes to
take place in the Pharmacy.
27a
l(e) Personnel List of Pharmacy delineated by race
from April 1, 1984 to May 31, 1986 with ADJ, HIRE,
BASE PAY.
1(h) Counseling Memo to Dalton Williams dated
5/8/85.
1(j) Education Assistance Request Form Z of Enc
Johnson dated 1/8/85.
1(1) Counseling Memo to Eric Johnson dated 5/2/85
indicating suspension of Eric Johnson for incorrect LV.
fluid dispensed (Amphotericin in NACL 0.9% 250 ml).
l(m) Report on I.V. Incident dated 5/3/85 about Am-
photericin in NACL 0.9% 250 ml, concerning Eric John-
son.
l(n) List of payroll of persons delineated by race re-
ceiving night differential pay from April 1, 1984 to May
31, 1986.
l(o) List of payroll of persons delineated by race re-
ceiving evening differential pay from April 1, 1984 to
May 31, 1986.
l(p) File maintained on James G. Walker including
1(d) -- document to James Gary.
l(q) List of College Degrees delineated by race of all
pharmacy employees from Apmil 1, 1984 to May 31,
1986.
INTERROGATORIES
No. 14. From April 1, 1984 to May 31, 1986 what
amount of Federal Funds did Suburban receive?
No. 15 From Aprii 1, 1984 to May 31, 1986 what
amount of State Funds did Suburban receive?
28a
No. 16 With the said dates, what is the percent of
Federal Funds received by Suburban?
No. 17 With the said dates, what is the percent of
State Funds received by Suburban?
No. 22 Was the reduced salary of the said pharmacist
still higher than the salary of Plaintiff James GC. Walker?
(Base Pay)
No. 24 Was the salary of the said person without the
Marvland Pharmacy License higher than the salary of
Plaintiff James G. Walker?
No. 25 Motion to strike “with greater experience
levels than Plaintiff James G. Walker.”
No. 27. Was the salary of the said white Pharmacist re-
duced?
No. 28 Was the salary of the said white Pharmacist
greater than the salary of the Plaintiff James G. Walker?
Respectfully submitted,
James G. Walker, R. Ph., J.D.
(202) 723-0593 1412 Whittier Place, N.W.
Business (301) 565-5960 Washington, D.C. 20012
This is to certify that the foregoing Motion To Compel
Defendant Joan Finnerty was mailed June 8, 1988 post-
age prepaid to:
1. Office of the Clerk
101 W. Lombard Street Room 409
United States District Court
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
29a
hr
Law Office of John Kruchko
28 West Alleghany Ave. Suite 606
Baltimore, Maryland 21204
James G. Walker, R. Ph., J.D.
30a
APPENDIX H
SUBURBAN
HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION
8600 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814
301/530-3100
REPORT ON IV INCIDENT
5-3-85
4-29-85 — Notified for the first tme by Aman, evening
pharmacist, of an IV incident that took place on Friday,
May 26, 1985. It appeared that Amphotericin had been
mixed with NaCl 0.9% in a 250 ml. bag instead of the
labeled Dextrose 5% in Water in a 250 ml. bag. I asked
him as to who made the [V-Admixture. He stated that
Eric had made the Admixture. My first thought was to
the whereabouts of an incident report. After some fur-
ther investigation, I found out that Quinn Burwell looked
at the prepared [V-Admixture on the floor. Mr. Burwell
is a technician, not a pharmacist. The patient was in iso-
lation and the incorrect solution was re-prepared and
administered. Since the patient was in isolation, the in-
correct solution (evidence) was destroyed. I talked with
Eric Johnson about the situation. He stated that he did
not prepare any Amphotericin Solutions and that he did
not remember checking any prepared solutions. He rem-
embers taking a prepared solution to the floor for this pa-
tient, as the original order had been for and prepared in
50 or 100 ml. of solution. This volume of the solution
was changed by him on the patient’s chart to 250 ml.
after conferring with the physician. By this time, it was
3la
late in the day. I deferred any further investigation until
the next day.
4-30-85 — On Tuesday, I determined that there had been
no incident report filed. As to the reason why not, I
don’t know. I was also notified by Mr. Kochhar of the
incident. I then asked Heidi Christ] to go look at the
chart, since the patient had expired. The patient had
been at death’s door for the week, and there was a noti-
fication of the incorrect solution. I conferred with Jon
Dorcas, pharmacist, about the situation. He stated that
he might have OK’d a solution. I conferred with Rose-
mary Armah and Chris Lively, technicians on IV duty for
the day. Rosemary stated that she made no solutions
containing amphoterician. Chris stated that he had made
some during the day, but that he did not remember any
by that patient. I then went to see Bernie Welch, Direc-
tor of Personnel, concerning the situation. I related to
her the fact that Amphotericin was potentially incompat-
ible with NaCl 0.9%, but not Dextrose 5%. There had
been no incident report filed, but that I knew the ident-
ity of the nurse. I also gave her all of the known facts
as of that moment. She related to me that I would have
to get in contact with the nurse. I returned to the phar-
macy, checked with the floor where the nurse works,
and discovered that the nurse was off and would return
to work on Wednesday.
5-1-85 — On Wednesday moming, I sent a note to Ms.
Roberta Conti, Assistant Administrator, about the
potential problem. I went to see Ms. Cecilia Jimenez to
find out the phone number of the nurse in question. At
this point in time, the incident had been disclosed. Mr.
Jimenez called the nurse. She related to the nurse that
an incident report would have to be filed with Risk Man-
agement when she reported to work, and that I would
32a
like to talk with her. Upon quizzing her, she stated that
the nurse on the IV team had been called to look at the
IV because of the decreasing flow of the IV into the pat-
ient. It was at this point that the IV nurse discovered the
potential problem. The regular nurse notified that Phar-
macy of the problem, whereas Aman, the Pharmacist on
duty, related to the nurse that the physician should be
contacted. He was notified. I then contacted Linda
Klingingsmith to see if she could find out who the nurse
was and to find out some more details. About 2 hours
later, she came by the pharmacy and related to use the
details as the [V nurse interpreted the situation. The
solution had been piggy-backed into the patient, but that
the reason the IV rate was decreasing was due to the fact
that the [V was running through a final filter. The
amphotericin was gradually clogging up the filter, as
either a precipitate or large size of the particle was too
big for the filter. The IV nurse then set up a new line.
The re-prepared Amphotericin in Dextrose 5% was ad-
ministered to the patient and by-passing the filter. Mr.
Johnson was quite relieved to hear this piece of news.
Ms. Conti, Mr. Johnson, and I conversed with Aman and
Mr. Burrell at approximately 3:00 PM. She asked then
the flow of events of that evening. She expressed to
both of them about proper notification of proper phar-
macy authonities until approximately 72 hours later, and
that Mr. Burwell had been dispatched to see the incorrect
IV solution in deference to Aman. She also stated that
she would have to confer with Ms. Welch before making
any kind or type of recommendation because the evi-
dence had been destroyed.
5-2-85 — 1 conferred with Ms. Conti after her conversa-
tion with Ms. Welch. It was recommended that because
of events during the day. Mr. Johnson should be given a
33a
3 day suspension starting on 5-3-85. He is to return to
work on Wednesday, May 8, 1985.
/s/ M. Franklin Jefferson
M. Franklin Jefferson
Director of Pharmaceutical Services
May 3, 1985
34a
4/26/85 Combs Rm 281
I received a call sometime between 7-7:30 p stating
that the IV was not running. The insertion site looked
good when I had seen the IV on rounds made earlier that
evening. When I arrived I noted the IVPB of amphotera-
cin was connected with add-a-line tubing directly into the
main continue flow tubing of DgNS. There was a green
tag covering the piggyback to protect it from the light.
The filter was clogged on the main tubing preventing the
infusion of the medication. A filter should not be used
with amphotericin. I first changed the main line + re-
sumed the infusion of D,NS. Then I set the amphoteri-
can up on an I-MED tubing, while doing that I noticed
that the drug was mixed in a 250 cc bag of NS—I double
checked the medication label which did state medication
should not run through a filter + that it was mixed in
D,W. Approximately 50-75 cc of the medication had in-
fused. Pharmacy was notified by the floor. Dr Wadler
(attending physician) was called + informed of the inci-
dent by the floor.
Mary Luce IVT 5/1/85
35a
APPENDIX I
CHAPTER V
INTRAVENOUS ADMIXTURE INCOMPATIBILITIES
Incidence of Incorgpatibilities
An intravenous admixture is incompatible when the
prescribed drugs cannot be combined safely and satisfac-
torily. The incompatibility may be between two drugs or
between a drug and the intravenous solution. The inci-
dence of incompatibilities is relatively low when com-
pared to the number of intravenous admixtures prepared,
but the possibility of an unexpected or undesirable com-
bination always exists. If an incompatibility occurs and
goes undetected, the patient may not receive the full
therapeutic effect of the medication. A more serious
consequence is that an incompatibility may lead to the
formation of toxic products having an adverse effect on
the patient.
Types of Incompatibilities
Incompatibilities may be classified as physical, chemi-
cal, or therapeutic.
Physical Incompatibilities: A physical incompatibility
occurs when two drugs are combined in a solution to pro-
duce a change in the appearance of that solution. This vis-
ual change may be recognized as a change in color, evolu-
tion of a gas, development of a haze, or formation of a
precipitate (solid particles which settle out of solution
upon standing). This is the easiest type of incompatibility
to detect because it can be visually observed.
An example of a physical incompatibility is the com-
bination of Fungizone® amphotericin B with 0.9% So-
dium Chloride Injection which results in precipitation of
the drug.
36a
Chemical Incompatibilities: A chemical incompatibil-
ity occurs when two drugs react to cause the chemical
degradation of one or both drugs. This type of incom-
patibility may be a nonvisual incompatibility in which its
occutrence can be detected only by analytical methods or
may be manifest by a physical change in the solution.
An example of a chemical incompatibility is the com-
bination of penicillin G and vitamin B complex *** C.
Although there is no visual evidence of the interaction,
the penicillin G is inactivated by the low pH caused by
the ascorbic acid in the vitamin preparation.
Aa SP sen Ml a Nels tn aa al
BARU He ene
37a
APPENDIX J
James G. WALKER, R.Ph., J.D.
September 16, 1985
What changes would you like to see take place in the
Pharmacy? Please comment on the following, and return
to Jim Gary by Monday, September 23, 1985. Thank
you. (Please use additional sheets if necessary).
l.
or
Scheduling
My schedule is fine. It is based on the contract.
. Filling of the cassettes
Leave it just like it is.
. Putting combination lock on the doors. 1. Do not put
combination locks on the doors. It will impede enter-
ing and exiting from the pharmacy. 2. Take the com-
bination lock off of the narcotic vault and put a lock
with a key on it. The combination lock is impeding
entering into the narcotic vault.
. What ts the problem with working supervisors?
See question 12.
. Control of drug inventory, better drug stock
An estimate should be made of the amount of each
drug needed in the pharmacy. Whenever, there are
only ten units of a drug left in the pharmacy that drug
must be ordered in an amount to give us the original
estimate. An order must be placed on every Thursday,
that will give us enough of every drug in the pharmacy
to last until Monday.
. Sharing of mail boxes
Fine as long as each individual’s mail is identifiable.
. Training and orientation
N/A since I came in as an experienced pharmacist.
38a
. What ts the problem with the dumbwaiter?
It is suppose to be used for stat medication, instead
routine orders are placed on the dumbwaiter and medi-
cation which is placed on the dumbwaiter remains for
long periods of time.
. How can we control missing medications and have
more accountability?
The carts must be filled in time to allow more than one
pharmacist to check them. No one pharmacist should
check all of the carts.
10. Better system for coding MAR’s in Pharmacy
All medication sent from the Pharmacy should be
charged.
Communications
No comment.
What other comments or suggestions do you have?
(A) There appears to be a pay disparity among the
pharmacists.
(B) There appears to be night differential pay disparity
with other hospital staff.
Night pharmacist paid “evening differential”’; others
paid full “night differential”’.
(C) To prevent over exposure to agents which may
cause cancer, a pharmacist SHOULD NOT prepare
more than one CHEMO per 24 hour period (per tour
of duty). Disposable CHEMO jackets are needed.
(D) Does “working supervisor” mean: Person fills pre-
scriptions and does other hands on functions, as well
as certifies the correctness of the work of others,
and accepts the responsibility for the consequences
of actions taken?
39a
APPENDIX K
TITLE: PROMOTIONS
POLICY
Suburban Hospital has an active program of promo-
tion from within. When a job vacancy occurs, considera-
tion is given to current employees. Employees should
apply for promotions directly to their department
heads.
PROCEDURE
SEE: TRANSFERS AND PROMOTIONS
/s/ Sharon M. Tanner 5/27/82
DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL (DATE)
/s/ Joan Finnerty 5-27-82
HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR (DATE)
REVIEW DATES:
PAGE 1 OF 1
TITLE: TRANSFERS AND PROMOTIONS
POLICY
Suburban Hospital has an active program of career ad-
vancement and promotion from within. Consideration is
given to all interested employees when a job vacancy oc-
curs. Transfers and promotions will be made on the
basis of seniority, qualifications and previous perform-
ance records. Requests for transfers into posted posi-
40a
tions may be made at any time during the posting per-
iod, and consideration of these requests will be given
when a specific posted position exists.
Only non-probationary employees will be considered
for transfer. Exceptions for extraordinary cases may be
made upon recommendation of the department head.
This policy shall be used for transfers (including pro-
motions) from:
1. One department to another
2. One cost center to another
3. One position to another
PROCEDURE
All non-administrative position vacancies will be listed
for a minimum of five working days on a weekly job
posting list located on the bulletin board by the em-
ployee entrance. Employees are responsible for initiat-
ing an application for transfer to any posted vacancy
for which they feel they are qualified.
Employees who are best qualified for a position va-
cancy within their department will be given priority
consideration for the position. If no employee is selected
for the position, outside applicants will be considered.
Al! applicants for a position vacancy will be judged
according to their ability to meet all of the following
criteria:
1. Section (unit), departmental, or hospital seniority
(this is in order of priority)
Educational requirements for the position
Experience requirements for the position
Special skills required
A satisfactory employee according to the person-
nel record
OF Hw GO DO
ad OF
4la
An employee seeking a transfer will begin the process
by contacting the personnel department for counseling
about the position and, if a transfer is recommended,
completion of form #FT 990. The employee will be re-
quired to schedule the necessary interviews and obtain
appropriate signatures. The personnel department will
advise the employee of each step to be followed. At the
end of the second interview, the interviewer will return
the transfer request form to the personnel department.
The personnel department will notify the employee
of the interview cutcome. If any employee is accepted
for transfer or promotion, the personnel department
will notify the employee’s current supervisor. The trans-
fer will occur at the beginning of the pay period gener-
ally following a two-week notice to the employee’s cur-
rent supervisor unless a greater or lesser period has been
agreed upon by all parties to the transfer.
/s/ Sharon M. Tanner 5/27/82
DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL (DATE)
/s/ Joan Finnerty 5-27-82
HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR (DATE)
REVIEW DATES:
42a
APPENDIX L
TITLE: SHIFT DIFFERENTIALS
POLICY
Employees who work the evening and night shifts
receive additional compensation in the form of a differ-
ential either as a percentage of the base of a pay grade
or as a fixed amount.
PROCEDURE
In order to carry out the above policy, the following
parameters are to be followed:
NORMAL SHIFTS:
1. Day Shift: Any scheduled shift which begins and
ends between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
2. Evening Shift: Any scheduled shift which begins
and ends between 3:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m.
3. Night Shift: Any scheduled shift which begins and
ends between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.
EXCEPTIONAL SHIFTS:
Any scheduled shift which begins in one normal shift
and ends in another will be paid the differential for the
shift in which 50% or more of the hours occur.
EXAMPLES:
1. An employee who is scheduled to work 3:00 p.m.
to 11:30 p.m. will be paid 8 hours of evening dif-
ferential.
2. An employee who is scheduled to work 1:00 p.m.
to 11:30 p.m. would be paid 10 hours of evening
differential.
os et Sl te
43a
3. An employee who is scheduled to work 10:00 p.m.
to 6:30 a.m. would be paid 8 hours of night differ-
ential.
4. An employee who is scheduled to work 11:00 a.m.
to 7:30 p.m. would be paid as a day employee
with no differential.
An employee who is scheduled to work 12 noon
to 8:30 p.m. would be paid 8 hours of evening dif-
ferential.
we
TITLE: SHIFT DIFFERENTIALS
6. If an employee works a double shift, each shift
will be treated separately. An.employee who is
scheduled to work 7:00 am. to 3:30 p.m. and
then works an additional shift until 11:30 p.m.
would be paid 7% hours of evening differential.
/s/ Bernadette Welch 5/11/84
DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL (DATE)
/s/ Joan Finnerty 5/14/84
HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR (DATE)
REVIEW DATES:
44a
APPENDIX M
cs 9
L$¢l
LOS!
00 07
cl bl
89 TI
RTS
elel
RT bl
6i tl
COT!
ies
ToT
9F°$
to°9
is9
9S Tl
19°9
is9
1Orl
aseg
040
l6l
00T
o0£
Ig
Isl
O10
Ig
Ig
IgI
Ig
0SO
IRI
Oso
O10
020
Ig!
020
O80
IRI
daig aprin
Stso
£tso
ciso
O1SO0
PISO
Piso
Ltso
PISO
Piso
PISO
riso
9IS0
rISsO
9I1S0
Ltso
SIso
riso
soso
rR00
rIso
apo.)
gor
OLPR LST TAINNOSY 4d ATNSIA MIE
‘Say
I
l
I
I
I
I
l
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
l
I
JUS
OLPSR
OLPSR
OLPR
OLbS8
OLb9
OLPS8
OLPS
OLPS8
OLPR
OLbR
OLPR
OLPSR
OLPS
OLPS
OLPR
OLbO
OLbx
OLPS8
OLPR
OLPR
‘idaq
‘Tes any
S8/ST/L0
08/P1/90
ER/RT/ 11
£8/S1/80
69/1/10
£8/80/70
b8/60/60
PR/S7/TI
$8/0¢/S0
$8/80/60
$8/97/¢0
S8/81/¢0
Sk/S1/20
S8/L0/01
£9/€7/60
£8/90/90
£8/10/20
£8/27/90
b8/b0/60
08/07/20
2H “(py
APD) TV. LidSOH NVaunans
OPRLbLTES
lOZ60P6L5
OLPERPEZO
ESeeRsor7
6901 9P8LS
LESOBRRLS
SREGTRRLS
ILpoosore
ERSOPEST
SShETHIRT
PLES9ORIZ
£90S P9917
99LSP6RS7
LEEPESLOO
T6L9OS6LS
IRbSORLLS
96S6RSLS |
POSSOLRLS
OPLLPLRLS
FOL EOR0TO
# dug
‘W'S ‘odune
“1 W ‘Souor
‘9 9 “vosuyor
‘AW “Uosiagjar
“MA A Suet yaqy
laIsy ‘nyreyy
WV ‘saatain
UPA “NID
T'S ‘omy
Ta ‘pmog
'W Uo ‘seo10q
'§ ‘soyeuog
‘Td ‘YP
‘Df ‘uolainy
qi Arepw ‘your,
‘VO ‘1Paung
yOOS uy ‘arg
‘OU yeuny
'Y¥ '§ ‘uosiapuy
WOW Y ‘yeynuewy
owen
WY 606 S861 ‘£7 FPO cuny
45a
Le°9
Ls‘9
Ls‘
Ou'el
L6'S |
17's
gu>
OPTI
aro
bs'Ol
979
leet
979
679
gel
leet
S19
Lv9
08'S
70'9
asey
OS
0L0
040
isl
O77
O10
O10
Isl
0L0
O17
020
ikl
010
020
Ig!
007
020
020
oso
010
dag oper
91S0
SIso
stso
Piso
11so0
Liso
LIso
Piso
stso
61S0
SIso
Piso
Stso
Stso
Piso
RISO
Siso
Siso
9180
SISO
apo.)
gor
OLS
OLR
OLS
OLS
OLPR
OLPR
OLPS
OLPS
OLPS
OLPR
OLPR
OLPR
OLPS
OLPR
OLPS
OLPR
OLPR
OLPR
OLPR
OLPR
idaq
08/80/20
18/12/20
18/40/¢€0
$8/80/70
£8/97/60
18/60/11
$8/71/90
b8/67/bO
pR/ST/10
$8/0¢/60
SR/P7/L0
LL/SUSO
TR/SO/TI
£8/87/€0
$8/07/£0
p8/C1/80
78/60/S0
pa/so/ro
78/67/80
p8/£7/L0
any “ipy
creer rrr
6L66PEETO
99TPHLBLS
9S9SPS9OLT
SOR9ELIED
SPEV9OTIT
PSO9IORLLS
RIPOPOLLS
LELOIRLLS
O6TTPOOLS
PETIOPSOLI
CLEORIEKS
[PL9O9PSC
ELTOOIRLS
OUSL86TIT
ELSOPOLRS
9PS9066TT
CHREPRRLS
RLSTRESET
OO9TTSOLI
EOURTOOIT
# yduig
saohojdwy Op
‘WC ‘edeuryso,
‘Vv ‘quan,
uror ‘UIA
dun, ‘uo,
“Td “wosurenyi ay
ON StureTT TTA
WOW USTEA
‘°F 221M
'§ ‘sewouy
'V 2 “eyapaus
‘Vv '§ ‘ondeys
‘If f A UOSIAIIg
‘Vd ‘AqNO
‘V¥ J uae pW
‘a WW URMONOW
‘DH ‘pueqouep
‘WO ‘Ajaary
‘HW sete]
‘¢ ‘aopy MmeAy
‘aL ‘Qey
owen
46a
APPENDIX N
10-30-85
It was brought to my attention 10/29/85 (Tuesday) that
Efed II caps had been wnitten in the want book—they
were not obtainable from any local wholesaler. In the
afternoon of 10/29 Dr. Kline was called and notified of
the problem of obtaining Efed II which is a combination
of ephedrine and caffeine. The afternoon pharmacist
(Barbara Dowd) notified the physicians that we did have
ephedrine available and asked if this would be an accept-
able alternative. He stated that he had spoken with a
pharmacist the night before (presumably James Walker)
who told him we did not have ephedrine available.
At this time I have not spoken to James Walker but it
was felt that this should be prepared as a written report.
Heidi Marchand, Pharm.D.
47a
APPENDIX O
Chemo Orders
Require - 1 Physician order in writing
2 Sterile products laboratory order form
Procedures
1) Information will be transferred to the IV profile
from the physician’s order.
2) The pharmacist in charge of the [V Room will
estimate time needed to compound the order.
3) Labels are typed that include all information on the
normal IV label plus information relating to final vol-
ume, special handling precaution.
4) Vertical Laminar flow hood will be turned & steri-
lized on and allowed to run for 15 minutes before begin-
ning of compounding.
5) Material will be collected that will be needed for
the compounding i.e. medications, solutions, needles,
syringes, gauze pads, chemopins.
6) A red containation bag will be placed in the trash
can, for disposal of chemo contaminated material.
7) The pharmacist will priority the materials to be
made to allow for maximum compounding efficiency.
8) The pharmacist will compounding the chemo using
proper technique.
9) Material used that may be contaminated by the
chemotheraputic will be disposed of in the red contam-
inated bag bottles, gauze, medication gloves.
10) The bag will be tied and placed in the contamin-
ated disposal waste basket in the main pharmacy.
11) The pharmacist will wash hands & arms immed-
iately.
12) The medications will be sent to the floor by the
most appropriate means.
48a
APPENDIX P
NATIONAL STUDY COMMISSION ON
CYTOTOXIC EXPOSURE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HANDLING
CYTOTOXIC AGENTS
September 1984
Preamble
The increasing use of cytotoxic agents and the growing
awareness of potential hazards requires special attention
to the procedures utilized in the handling, preparation
and administration of these drugs. Equally important is
the proper disposal of chemical residues and wastes.
These recommendations are intended to provide infor-
mation for the protection of personnel participating in
the clinical process of chemotherapy. The mutagenic and
carcinogenic potential of many cytotoxic agents is well
established and is a possible hazard to the health of ex-
posed individuals. It is the responsibility of institutional
and private health care providers to adopt and use ap-
propriate procedures for protection and safety.
Il. Environmental Protection
1. All mixing of cytotoxic agents should be performed
in a Class II, biological safety cabinet. Type A cabinets
are the minimal requirement. Type A cabinets which are
vented (some now classified as Type B3) are preferred.
2. Special techniques and precautions must be uti-
lized because of the vertical (downward) laminar airflow
(see Supplement I).
3. The biological safety cabinet must be certified by
qualified personnel annually or any time the cabinet is
physically moved.
a Ci me,
49a
4. The biological safety cabinet should be operated
with the blower on, 24 hours per day—seven days per
week.
5. Drug preparations must be performed only with the
view screen at the recommended access opening. Profes-
sionally accepted practices concerning the aseptic prepa-
ration of injectable products should be followed.
II. Operator Protection
1. Disposable surgical latex gloves are recommended
for all procedures involving cytotoxic drugs. Polyviny]
chloride (PVC) gloves should not be worn while handling
cytotoxic agents. Several types of PVC gloves are perme-
able to a variety of drugs.
2. Gloves should routinely be changed approximately
every 30 minutes when working steadily with cytotoxic
agents. Gloves should be removed immediately after
overt contamination.
3. Double gloving is recommended for cleaning up
of spills.
4. Protective barrier garments should be worn for all
procedures involving the preparation and disposal of
cytotoxic agents. These garments should have a closed
front, long sleeves and closed cuff (either elastic or knit).
5. All potentially contaminated garments must not be
worn outside the work area.
III. Compounding Procedures and Techniques
1. Hands must be washed thoroughly before gloving
and after gloves are removed.
2. Care must be taken to avoid puncturing of gloves
and possible self-inoculation.
3. Syringes and I.V. sets with Luer-lock fittings should
be used whenever possible.
4. Vials should be vented with a hydrophobic filter
to eliminate internal pressure or vacuum.
50a
5. Before opening ampules, care should be taken to
insure that no liquid remains in the tip of the ampule. A.
sterile, disposable alcohol dampened gauze sponge should
be wrapped around the neck of the ampule to reduce
aerosolization.
6. For sealed vials, final drug measurement should be
performed prior to removing the needle from the stopper
of the vial and after the pressure has been equalized.
7. A closed collection vessel should be available in the
biological safety cabinet or the original vial may be used
to hold discarded excess drug solutions.
8. Special procedures should be followed for acute
exposure or spills (Supplement II).
9. Cytotoxic agents which are handled within the
treatment area should be properly labeled (e.g., ““Chemo-
therapy: Dispose of Properly’’).
Approved by the National Study Commission on Cyto-
toxic Exposure March 1984
IV. Precautions for Medication Administration
1. Disposable surgical latex gloves should be wom
during all cytotoxic drug administration activities.
2. Syringes and I.V. sets with Luer-lock fittings
should be used whenever possible.
3. Special care must be taken in priming I.V. sets. The
distal tip cover must be removed before priming. Prim-
ing should be performed into a sterile, alcohol-dampened
gauze sponge, which then is disposed of appropniately.
V. Disposal Procedures
1. Place contaminated materials in a leakproof, punc-
ture-proof container appropnately marked as hazardous
waste,
5la
2. Cytotoxic drug waste should be transported accord-
ing to the institutional procedures for contaminated ma-
terial.
3. There is insufficient information to recommend any
single preferred method for disposal of cytotoxic drug
waste.
3.1 One method for disposal of hazardous waste is
by incineration at a temperature considered sufficient
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
destroy organic compounds. Incineration should be
done in an EPA permitted hazardous waste incinerator.
3.2 Another method of disposal is by burial at an
EPA permitted hazardous waste site.
3.3. A licensed hazardous waste disposal company
may be consulted for information concerning available
methods of disposal in the local area.
VI.. Personnel Policy Recommendations
1. All personnel working with cytotoxic agents must
receive special training.
2. Access to the compounding area must be limited to
only necessary authorized personnel.
3. The personnel working with these agents should be
observed regularly by supervisory personnel to insure
compliance with procedures.
4. Acute exposure episodes must be documented. The
employee must be referred for professional medical ex-
amination.
Cette et ee ON ek ee. mw
VII. Monitoring Procedures
1. Procedures to monitor the equipment and operat-
ing techniques of the personnel should be performed on a
| regular basis and documented. Specific methods of moni-
toring should be developed to meet the complexities of
the function.
52a
2. It is recommended that personnel involved in the
preparation of cytotoxic agents on a full time basis be
given periodic health examinations in accordance with
institutional policy.
Supplement I
Special Techniques and Precautions for Use in the
Class II Biological Safety Cabinet
1. All equipment needed to complete the procedure
in the Class II Biological Safety Cabinet should be placed
into the cabinet before beginning and the view screen
should be placed at the recommended operating position.
A wait of at least two to three minutes before beginning
work to allow the unit time to purge itself of airborne
contaminants is recommended.
2. The proper procedures for use in the Biological
Safety Cabinet are not the same as those used in the hon-
zontal laminar hood. In many cases they seem contradic-
tory, although :n theory they are not. This is because of
the nature of the airflow pattern in the Biological Safety
Cabinet. Clear air descends through the work zone from
the top of the cabinet toward the work surface. As it de-
scends, the air is split, with some leaving through the rear
perforation and some leaving through the front perfora-
tion. The region where the airflow splits is known as the
‘smoke split’? because smoke introduced into this area
appears to split into two directions.
3. It is recommended that the smoke split be deter-
mined and marked on each cabinet after it is purchased
even if the manufacturer states its location. This can be
easily done by using an incense stick to generate smoke
and moving it gently from front to rear laterally along the
work surface of the cabinet near the center.
4. Routinely used large equipment should be placed in
the cabinet in its normal position when the determina-
ila este eed
tse Ste
53a
tion of the smoke split is made. The equipment should
then be placed in the same position every time the cabi-
net is, used.
5. Personnel should refrain from applying any face
powder, eye make-up, rouge, fingernail polish, hairspray
or other cosmetics in the work area. These cosmetics
may provide a source of prolonged exposure if contami-
nated.
6. Eating, drinking, chewing of gum, storage of food
or smoking in, around or near the Biological Safety Cabi-
net should be prohibited. Each of these are sources of
ingestion if they are accidentally contaminated by the
cytotoxic agent or other hazardous products.
7. Sterile products should be arranged in the cabinet
so as to minimize the possibility of contamination. This
may mean locating them in the immediate vicinity of
the smoke split. If appropriate, due to quantity or con-
figuration, the sterile items should be kept only in the
center and nonsterile items on either side.
8. For additional operator protection, it is recom-
mended that the area behind the smoke split be used
whenever possible since the airflow direction in that area
is away from the operator, lessening the chance of acci-
dental exposure.
9. The least efficient area of the cabinet in terms of
product and personnel protection is within three inches
of the sides near the front opening. Therefore, you
should not work within three inches of the sides of the
cabinet.
10. Periodic evaluation of the smoke split should be per-
formed on a routine basis. A constantly changing smoke
split location may be indicative of problems with the
operation of the cabinet.
54a
11. Entry into and exit from the cabinet should be ina
direct manner perpendicular to the face cf the cabinet.
Rapid movements of the hands in the cabinet and later-
ally through the protective air barrier should be avoided.
Supplement II
Special Procedures for Acute Exposure or Spills
1.0 Acute exposure
1.1 Overtly contaminated gloves or outer garments
should be removed and replaced immediately after an
exposure.
1.2 Hands should be washed after removing gloves.
Gloves are not a substitute for handwashing.
1.3 In case of skin contact with a cytotoxic drug
product, the affected area should be washed thorough-
ly with soap and water as soon as possible. Refer to
professional medical attention as soon as possible.
1.4 For eye exposure, flush affected eye with copi-
ous amounts of water. Refer to professional medical
attention immediately.
2.0 Spills
2.1 All personnel involved in the clean-up of a spill
should wear protective clothing (e.g. gloves, gowns,
etc.). All clothes and other material used in the pro-
cess should be treated or disposed of properly.
2.2 Double gloving should be used in the cleaning
up of spills.
NATIONAL STUDY COMMISSION ON
CYTOTOXIC EXPOSURE
Louis P. Jeffrey, Sc.D., Chairman
Director of Pharmacy Services
Rhode Island Hospital
a ee et ee Te Bale
55a
Roger W. Anderson, M.S.
Director of Pharmacy
University of Texas
M.D. Anderson Hospital
Clarence L. Fortner, M.S.
Head, Drug Management and Authorization Section
IDB Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program
Division of Cancer Treatment
National Cancer Institute
Joseph F. Gallelli, Ph.D.
Chief, Pharmacy Department
The Clinical Center
National Institutes of Health
Dennis M. Hoffman, Pharm.D.
Director of Pharmacy Services
University of New York at Stony Brook
Louis A. Leone, M.D.
Director of Medical Oncology
Rhode Island Hospital
Robert M. O’Bryan, M.D.
Division Head, Medical Oncology
Henry Ford Hospital
Jeffrey C. Theiss, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Convenor of
Environmental Services
University of Texas
School of Public Health
Joseph N. Gallina, Pharm.D., Secretariat
Director of Pharmacy Services
University of Maryland Medical System/Hospital
For additional information contact:
Louis P. Jeffrey, Sc.D., Chairman
National Study Commission on Cytotoxic Exposure
56a
Rhode Island Hospital
Department of Pharmacy
Providence, Rhode Island 02902
Supported by a grant from Bristol Laboratories
***ng Cancer Chemotherapy Agents
Aronson, R. H. and Sieber, S. M., “Carcinogenic Po-
tential of Cancer Chemotherapeutic Agents in Man,”
The Cancer Bulletin 29:179 (6) 1977.
American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, “Disposal
of Unused Anticancer Drugs,” The Signal May, 1979.
Ames, B. N., et al., “Methods for Detecting Carcino-
gens ad Mutagens with the Salmonella/Mammalian-
Microsome Mutagenicity Test,” Mutation Research
51:547-364 (December) 1975.
“Anderson, M., et al., “Development and Operation of
& Pharmacy Based Intravenous Cytotoxic Reconsti-
tution Serves,” B. Med. J. 286:32-36 (Jan. 1) 1983.
Anderson, RB. W., et al., “Risk of Handling Injectable
Antineoplastic Agents,” Am. J. Hosp. Pharm. 39:1881-
7 (Dec.) 1982.
"Avis, K. E. and Levchuk, J. W., “Special Considera-
tions in the Use of Vertical Laminar-Flow Work-
benches,” Am. J. Hosp. Pharm. 41:81-87 (Jan.) 1984,
Ballentine, Ron, “Cancerphobia—or Whatever Hap-
pened to Red M&M's” (editorial) Drug Intell. Clins-
cal Pharmacy 16:60-61 (Jan.) 1982.
Bergemann, D. A., “Handling Antineoplastic Agents,”
Am. J. 1V Therapy and Clin, Nutrition 10:13-17 (Jan.)
1983.
57a
Bledsoe, L., “Antineoplastic Agents—Management of
Health Risks for the I.V. Nurse,” NITA 6:332-333,
1983.
Brier, Kenneth L., et al., “Effect of Laminar Air Flow
and Clean-Room Dress on Contamination Rates of
Intravenous Admixtures,” Am. J. Hosp. Pharm. 38:
1 144-47 (Aug.) 1981.
Carrano, A. V., et al., “Sister Chromatid Exchange as
an Indicator of Mutagenesis,” Nature 271:551-553
(Feb. 9) 1978.
Clayson, D. B., “Principles Underlying Testing for
Carcinogenicity,” Cancer Bulletin 29:161-166 (6)
1977.
Crudi, C. B., “A Compounding Dilemma: I’ve Kept the
Drug Stenle But Have I Contaminated Myself?” N/JTA
3:77-8, 1980.
D’Arcy, P. F., “Reactions and Interactions in Hand-
ling Anticancer Drugs,” Drug Intell. Clinical Pharmacy
17:532-538 (July/Aug.) 1983.
Davis, M. R., “Guidelines for Safe Handling of Cyto-
toxic Drugs in Pharmacy Department and Hospital
Wards (The Society of Hospital Pharmacists of Aus-
tralia), Hosp. Pharm. 16:17-20 (Jan.) 1981.
Donner, A. L., **Possible Risk of Working with Antine-
oplastic Drugs in Horizontal Laminar Flow *oods
(letter),"’ Am. J. Hosp. Pharm. 35:900 (Aug.) 1978.
*alck, K., et al., “Mutagenicity in Urine of Nurses
Handling Cytostatic Drugs (letter),"’ Lancet 1:1250-1
(June 9) 1979.
Garber, E., “Chemical Carcinogenesis,"’ New Engl. J.
Med. 305:1379-89 (Dec. 3) 1981.
58a
Gibson, J. F., et al., “Mutagenicity of Urine From
Nurses Handling Cytotoxic Drugs” (letter), Lancet
100-107 (Jan. 14) 1984.
Gousse, G. C., et al., “Biological Safety Cabinets for
Chemotherapy Preparation (letter),"" Am. J. Hosp.
Pharm, 38:967 (July) 1081.
Goss, Jody, et al., “Possible Hazards of Working with
Cytotoxic Agents,” Oncology Nursing Forum *:10-12,
1981.
Hamilton, C. W., “Risk to Personnel Admixing Can-
cer Chemotherapy,” US Pharm. 7:H1-H8 (July) 1982.
Harris, C. C., “A Delayed Complication of Cancer
Therapy —Cancer,” /NCI 63:275-7, 1979.
*Harrison, Bruce R., “Developing Guidelines for Work-
ing with Antineoplastic Drugs,” 4m. J. Hosp. Pharm.
38:1686-1693 (Nov.) 1981.
**Hennessy, K. and Duval, A. “Chemotherapy Waste Dis-
posal: A Safe and Practical Method,” N/7A 5:311-312,
1982.
**Hirst, M., “Occupational Exposure to Cyclophospha-
mide,” Lancer 1:186-188 (Jan. 28) 1984.
*Hoffman, D. M., “The Handling of Antineoplastic
Drugs in a Major Cancer Center,” Hosp. Pharm. 15:
302-304 (June) 1980.
Hoffman, D. M., “Handling Cytotoxic Drugs (letter),”
Am. J. Hosp. Pharm. 38:1284-86 (Sept.) 1981.
Honda, D., Ignoffo, R. J., and Power, L. A., “Safety
Consideration in the Preparation of Parenteral Antine-
oplastics,’’ CSHP Voice 8:94-96 (Winter) 1981.
Hoover, R. and Fraumeni, J. D., “Drug-Induced Can-
cer,” Cancer 47:1071-80 (March 1) 1981 (Supple-
ment).
ee
SE
59a
**Johnson, B. L. and Gross, J., “Handling Methotrexate
—A Safety Problem,” Am. J. Nursing 82:1531 (Oct.)
1982.
Kleinberg, M. L. and Quinn, M. J., “Airborne Drug
Levels in a Laminar-Flow Hood,” Am. J. Hosp. Pharm.
38:1301-13 (Sept.) 1981.
“Knowles, R. S. and Virden, J. E., “Handling of Injec-
table Antineoplastic Agents,’ Brit. Med. J. 281:589-
91 (August 30) 1980.
Ladik, C. F., et al., “Precautionary Measures in the
Preparation of Antineoplastics (letter),"" Am. J. Hosp.
Pharm. 37:1184-86 (Sept.) 1980.
**LeRoy, M. L., et al., “Procedures for Handling Antine-
oplastic Injections in Comprehensive Cancer Centers,”
Am. J. Hosp. Pharm. 40:601-603 (April) 1983.
Marquardt, H. and Marquardt, H. “Induction of Malig-
nant Transformation and Mutagenesis in Cell Cultures
by Cancer Chemotherapy Agents,”’ Cancer 40:1930-34
(Oct.) 1977 (Supplement).
**Mattia, M. A. and Blake S. L., “Hospital Hazards: Can-
cer Drugs,”’ Am. J. Nursing 83:758-762 (May) 1983.
**Neal, A., et al., “Exposure of Hospital Workers to Air-
borne Antineoplastic Agents,” Am. J. Hosp. Pharm.
40:597-601 (April) 1983.
**Nevasaari, K., “Handling Cytostatic Drugs’ (letter)
Lancet 1:247-248 (Jan. 29) 1983.
Ng, L. M., “Possible Hazards of Handling Antineo-
plastic Drugs (letter),”” Pediatrics 46:648-49, 1970.
Norppa, H., et al., “Increased Sister Chromatid Ex-
change Frequencies in Lymphocytes of Nurses Han-
dling Cytostatic Drugs,” Scand. J. Work Environ.
Health 6(4):299-301 (Dec.) 1980.
60a
Perlman, M. and Walker, R., “Acute Leukemia Fol-
lowing Cytotoxic Chemotherapy (letter),”” /4MA
224:250 (April 9) 1973.
Redfearn, J., “* ‘Safety’ Cabinets are not safe, Says
UK Study,” Nature 278:384 (March 29) 1979.
Reich, Steven D., “‘Antineoplastic Agents as Poten-
tial Carcinogens: Are Nurses and Pharmacists at Risk?,”’
Cancer Nursing 4:500-502 (Dec.) 1981.
Reimer, R. R., et al., ‘Acute Leukemia After Alkylat-
ing Agent Therapy of Ovarian Cancer,” N. Engl. J.
Med. 297:177-81, 1977.
Rosner, F., ““Acute Leukemia as a Delayed Conse-
quence of Cancer Chemotherapy,” Cancer 37:1033-6,
1976.
Sieber, S. M., “Cancer Chemotherapeutic Agents and
Carcinogenesis,” Cancer Chemo. Reports 59:915-18
(Sept./Oct.) 1975.
**Solimando, D. A. “Preparation of Antineoplastic
Drugs: A Review,” Am. J. [V Therapy and Clin Nu-
trition 10:16-27 (Sept.) 1983.
**Sotaniemi, E. A., “Liver Damage in Nurses Handling
Cytotoxic Agents,” Acta, Med. Scand. 214:181-189,
1983.
Staiano, N., et al., “Lack of Mutagenic Activity in
Urine from Hospital Pharmacists Admixing Antitu-
mour Drugs,” Lancet 1:615-16, 1981.
Stolar, M. H., et al., ““Recommendations for Handling
Cytotoxic Drugs in Hospitals,” Am. J. Hosp. Pharm.
40:1163-1171 (July) 1983.
6la
Stuart, D. G., et al., “Survey, Use, and Performance of
Biological Safety Cabinets,” Am. Ind. Hygiene Assoc.
J. 43:264-670 (April) 1982.
Theiss, J. C., “Detection of Carcinogens,” in Cancer-
Achievements, Challenges, and Prospects for the
1980’s, Vol. 1, Burchenal, J. H. and Oettgen, H. F.,
Editors, Grune and Stratton, New York, 1981, pp.
281-90.
Thomsen, K. and Mikkelsen, H. L., ‘‘Protective Capac-
ity of Gloves Used for Handling of Nitrogen Mustard,”
Contact Dermatitis 1:268-69 (Aug.) 1975.
*Tortorici, M. p., “Precautions Followed by Personnel
Involved with the Preparation of Parenteral Antineo-
plastic Medications,”’ Hosp. Pharm. 15:293-301 (June)
1980.
**Vaccari, P. L., et al., “Disposal of Antineoplastic
Wastes at the National Institutes of Health,” Am. /.
Hosp. Pharm. 41:87-93 (Jan.) 1984.
**Venitt, S., et al., “Monitoring Exposure of Nursing
and Pharmacy Personnel to Cytotoxic Drugs: Urinary
Mutation Assays and Urinary Platinum as Markers of
Absorption,” Lancet 1:74-77 (Jan. 19) 1984.
Waksvik, H., et al., “Chromosome Analyses of Nurses
Handling Cytostatic Agents,” Cancer Treat. Rep. 65:
607-10 (July/Aug.) 1981.
Weisburger, J. H., et al., “The Carcinogenic Properties
; of Some of the Principal Drugs Used in Clinical Cancer
Chemotherapy,” Recent Results Cancer Res. 52:1-17,
1975.
Wilson, J. P. and Solimando, D.A., “‘Antineoplastics:
A Safety Hazard? (letter),"" Am. J. Hosp. Pharm. 38:
624 (May) 1981.
62a
Wilson, James P., et al., “Aseptic Technique as a Safety
Precaution in the Preparation of Antineoplastic
Agents,” Hosp. Pharm. 16:575-81 (Nov.) 1981.
Zellmer, William A., ‘Reducing Occupational Expo-
sure to Potential Carcinogens in Hospitals (editorial),”’
Am. J. Hosp. Pharm. 38:1679 (Nov.) 1981.
*Zimmerman, Paul F., et al., “Recommendations for
the Safe Handling of Injectable Antineoplastic Drug
Products,” Am. J. Hosp. Pharm. 38:1693-95 (Nov.)
1981.
“References containing handling guidelines.
** Additional references since March 1983.
© Copyright 1984
National Study Commission on Cytotoxic Exposure
63a
APPENDIX Q
Suburban Hospital Association
8600 Old Georgetown Road
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT—NIGHT PHARMACIST
I hereby agree to the following conditions of employ-
ment:
1 I will work an alternative work week schedule con-
sisting of seven (7) consecutive ten (10) hour night
shifts on duty and the next seven (7) consecutive
nights off duty.
2 I will be paid for eighty (80) hours for each seven
(7) consecutive ten (10) hour night shifts worked.
3 I will be entitled to all benefits eliglble to full-time
employees of Suburban Hospital with the following
exceptions, even if a record of one of these excep-
tions appears on my pay check, a computerized
print-out or the benefit accrual plan:
A — VACATION
B — HOLIDAYS
1 — LEGAL HOLIDAYS
2 — PERSONAL SERVICE DAYS
3 — BIRTHDAYS
4 As an exempt professional employee, I will receive
no overtime premium pay.
5 If I decide to leave the employment of Suburban
Hospital as a night pharmacist, I will give at least
THIRTY (30) days notice prior to my last day of
employment.
6 I understand that a copy of this agreement will be
placed in my employee file and that I will be given
a copy.
64a
7 Suburban Hospital reserves the right to discontinue
this type of scheduling. If this type of scheduling is
to be discontinued, the hospital will give the em-
ployee a minimum of 30 days notice.
Name of Employee (print) — /s/ James George Walker
Signature - /s/ James George Walker Date - May 16, 1984
Employer Representative (print) — /s/ Kevin A. Yarrow
Signature - /s/ Kevin A. Yarrow Date - 05-16-84
Adopted — 4-18-84
65a
APPENDIX R
STATE OF MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE
STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 2120]
! Area Code 301-225-5910
| TTY FOR DEAF: Balto 383-7555
D.C. Metro 565-0451
nh ee OS
Steven S. Cohen, P.D. William E. Adams, B.S. M.A.
President Baltimore City
Milton Moskowitz, P.D. Leonard J. DeMino, P.D.
Secretary Montgomery County
Roslyn Scheer, B.S., M.A.S. Theodore S. Litwin, L.L.B.
Executive Director Baltimore County
Dorothy Lewi, P.D.
Baltimore County
November 16, 1988
Walker Pharmacy, Inc.
7849 Eastern Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Dear Sir
This is in reply to your letter concerning Barbara Jeanne
Dowd. We are furnishing you with the information you
requested.
Ms. Dowd applied for a Maryland Pharmacist License on
11/8/85 and she became authorized to practice pharmacy
on 11/20/85.
a
Any questions please feel free to call us at 295-5910.
Sincerely,
Damanis Prince
State Bd of Pharmacy
67a
APPENDIX S
PUBLIC LAW 100-259 [S. 557]; March 22, 1988
| CIVIL RIGHTS RESTORATION ACT OF 1987
For Legislative History of Act, see Report for
P.L. 100-259 in U.S.C.C. & A.N. Legislative
| History Section.
An Act to restore the broad scope of coverage and to
clarify the application of title [IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilita-
tion Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of
1975, and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assem-
}
bled,
SHORT TITLE
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the “‘Civil Rights
Restoration Act of 1987”.
FINDINGS OF CONGRESS
Sec. 2. The Congress finds that—
| (1) certain aspects of recent decisions and opin-
ions of the Supreme Court have unduly narrowed
or cast doubt upon the broad application of title
IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975, and title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964; and
(2) legislative action is necessary to restore the
prior consistent and long-standing executive branch
interpretation and broad, institution-wide applica-
tion of those laws as previously administered.
b8a
EDUCATION AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT
Sec. 3. (a) Title [IX of the Education Amendments of
i972 is amended by adding at the end the following
new sections:
“INTERPRETATION OF ‘PROGRAM OR ACTIVITY’
‘Sec. 908. For the purposes of this title, the term
‘program or activity’ and ‘program’ mean al
ations of—
ot the oper-
“(1)(A) a department, agency, special purpose
district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a
local government; or
‘(B) the entity of such State or local govern-
ment that distributes such assistance and each such
department or agency (and each other State or lo-
cal government entity) to which the assistance is
extended, in the case of assistance to a State or lo-
cal government;
‘(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsec-
ondary institution, or a public system of higher
education; or
‘“(B) a local educational agency (as defined in
section 198(a)(10) of the Elementary and Second-
ary Education Act of 1965), system of vocational
education, or other school system;
“(3)(A) an entire corporation, partnership, or
other private organization, or an entire sole propri-
etorship;
(1) if assistance is extended to such corpora-
tion, partnership, private organization, or sole
proprietorship as a whole; or
“(i1) which is principally engaged in the busi-
ness of providing education, health care, housing,
social services, or parks and recreation; or
69a
‘(B) the entire plant or other comparable, geo-
graphically separate facility to which Federal finan-
cial assistance is extended, in the case of any other
corporation, partnership, private organization, or
sole proprietorship; or
(4) any other entity which is established by
two or more of the entities described in paragraph
(1), (2), or (3);
any part of which is extended Federal financial assistance,
except that such term does not include any operation of
an entity which is controlled by a religious organization
if the application of section 901 to such operation
would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such
organization.”
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act or any
amendment adopted thereto:
“NEUTRALITY WITH RESPECT TO ABORTION
‘Sec. 909. Nothing in this title shall be construed to
require or prohibit any person, or public or private en-
tity, to provide or pay for any benefit or service, includ-
ing the use of facilities, related to an abortion. Nothing
in this section shall be construed to permit a penalty to
be imposed on any person or individual because such
person or individual is seeking or has received any bene-
fit or service related to a legal abortion.”’.
REHABILITATION ACT AMENDMENT
Sec. 4. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
is amended—
(1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ after “Sec. 504.’’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sub-
sections:
‘“(b) For the purposes of this section, the term ‘pro-
gram or activity’ means all of the operations of—
—
70a
“*(1)(A) a department, agency, special purpose
district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a
local government; or
“(B) the entity of such State or local government |
that distributes such assistance and each such de-
partment or agency (and each other State or local
government entity) to which the assistance is ex-
tended, in the case of assistance to a State or local
government;
“(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsec-
ondary institution, or a public system of higher
education; or
““(B) a local educational agency (as defined in
section 198(a)(10) of the Elementary and Second-
ary Education Act of 1965), system of vocational
education, or other school system;
“(3)(A) an entire corporation, partnership, or
other private organization, or an entire sole propri-
etorship—
‘*(i) if assistance is extended to such corpora-
tion, partnership, private organization, or sole
proprietorship as a whole; or
“(ii) which is principally engaged in the busi-
ness of providing education, health care, hous-
ing, social services, or parks and recreation; or
‘“*(B) the entire plant or other comparable, geo-
graphically separate facility to which Federal finan-
cial assistance is extended, in the case of any other
corporation, partnership, private organization, or
sole proprietorship; or
(4) any other entity which is established by
two or more of the entities described in paragraph
(1), (2), or (3);
any part of which is extended Federal financial assis-
tance.
7la
‘“(c) Small providers are not required by subsection
(a) to make significant structural alterations to their
existing facilities for the purpose of assuring program
accessibility, if alternative means of providing the ser-
vices are available. The terms used in this subsection
shall be construed with reference to the regulations ex-
isting on the date of the enactment of this subsection.”’.
AGE DISCRIMINATION ACT AMENDMENT
Sec. 5. Section 309 of the Age Discrimination Act of
1975 is amended—
(1) by striking out “and” at the end of para-
graph (2);
(2) by striking out the period at the end of para-
graph (3) and inserting ‘‘; and”’ in lieu thereof; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following
new paragraph:
(4) the term ‘program or activity’ means all of
the operations of—
‘*(A)(i) a department, agency, special purpose
district, or other instrumentality of a State or of
a local government; or
“(ii) the entity of such State or local govern-
ment that distributes such assistance and each
such department or agency (and each other State
or local government entity) to which the assis-
tance is extended, in the case of assistance to a
State or local government;
“(B)(i) a college, university, or other postsec-
ondary institution, or a public system of higher
education; or
(ii) a local educational agency (as defined in
section 198(a)(10), of the Elementary and Sec-
ondary Education Act of 1965), system of voca-
tional education, or other school system;
72a
‘“(C)(i) an entire corporation, partnership, or
other private organization, or an entire sole pro-
prietorship—
“*(I) if assistance is extended to such corpo-
ration, partnership, private organization, or
sole proprietorship as a whole; or
“(I1) which is principally engaged in the
business of providing education, health care,
housing, social services, or parks and recrea-
tion; or
(ii) the entire plant or other comparable,
geographically separate facility to which Federal
financial assistance is extended, in the case of
any other corporation, partnership, private or-
ganization, or sole proprietorship; or
*(D) any other entity which is established by
two or more of the entities described in subpara-
graph (A), (B), or (C);
any part of which is extended Federal financial assis-
tance.”’.
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AMENDMENT
Sec. 6. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is
amended by adding at the end the following new sec-
tion:
“Sec. 606. For the purposes of this title, the term
' ‘program or activity’ and the term ‘program’ mean all of
the operations of—
‘“*(1)(A) a department, agency, special purpose
district, or other instrumentality of a State or of a
local government; or
“*(B) the entity of such State or local government
that distributes such assistance and each such de-
partment or agency (and each other State or local
government entity) to which the assistance is ex-
73a
tended, in the case of assistance to a State or local
government;
*(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsec-
ondary institution, or a public system of higher
education; or
“(B) a local educational agency (as defined in
section 198(a}(10) of the Elementary and Second-
ary Education Act of 1965), system of vocational
education, or other school system;
“(3)(A) an entire corporation, partnership, or
other private organization, or an entire sole propri-
etorship—
‘*(i) if assistance is extended to such corpo-
ration, partnership, private organization, or
sole proprietorship as a whole; or
“(ii) which is principally engaged in the
business of providing education, health care,
housing, social services, or parks and recrea-
tion; or
““(B) the entire plant or other comparable, geo-
graphically separate facility to which Federal finan-
cial assistance is extended, in the case of any other
corporation, partnership, private organization, or
sole proprietorship; or
“(4) any other entity which is established by
two or more of the entities described in paragraph
(1), (2), or (3);
any part of which is extended Federal financial assis-
tance.”
RULE OF CONSTRUCTION
Sec. 7. Nothing in the amendments made by this Act
shall be construed to extend the application of the Acts
so amended to ultimate beneficiaries of Federal financial
74a
assistance excluded from coverage before the enactment
of this Act.
ABORTION NEUTRALITY
Sec. 8. No provision of this Act or any amendment
made by this Act shall be construed to force or require
any individual or hospital or any other institution, pro-
gram, or activity receiving Federal Funds to perform or
pay for an abortion.
CLARIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITH
HANDICAPS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CONTEXT
Sec. 9. Section 7(8) of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 is amended by adding after subparagraph (B) the
following:
“(C) For the purpose of sections 503 and 504, as
such sections relate to employment, such term does not
include an individual who has a currently contagious dis-
ease or infection and who, by reason of such disease or
infection, would constitute a direct threat to the health
or safety of other individuals or who, by reason of the
currently contagious disease or infection, is unable to
perform the duties of the job.”’.
Jim Wright
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Harry M. Reid
Acting President of the Senate Pro Tempore.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
March 22 (legislative day, March 21), 1988.
The Senate having proceeded to reconsider the bill
(S. 557) entitled ‘“‘An Act to restore the broad scope of
AA de he edelems oO Sota
75a
coverage and to clarify the application of title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Re-
habilitation Act of 1973, the Age Discrimination Act of
1975, and title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964”’, re-
turned by the President of the United States with his
objection, to the Senate, in which it originated, it was
Resolved, That the said bill pass, two-thirds of the
Senators present having voted in the affirmative.
Attest: Walter J. Stewart
Secretary.
I certify that this Act originated in the Senate.
Walter J. Stewart
Secretary.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, U.S.,
March 22, 1988.
The House of Representatives having proceeded to
reconsider the bill (S. 557) entitled “An Act to restore
the broad scope of coverage and to clarify the applica-
tion of title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975, and title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964”, returned by the President of the
United States with his objections, to the Senate, in
which it originated, and passed by the Senate on recon-
sideration of the same, it was
Resolved, That the said bill pass, two-thirds of the
House of Representatives agreeing to pass the same.
Attest: Donnald K. Anderson
Clerk.
76a
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY -S. 557:
SENATE REPORTS: No. 100-64 (Comm. on Labor and
Human Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 134 (1988):
Jan. 26-28, considered and passed Senate.
Mar. 2, considered and passed House.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCU-
MENTS, Vol. 24 (1988):
Mar. 16, Presidential veto messages.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 134 (1988):
Mar. 22, Senate and House overrode veto.
PUBLIC LAW 100-260 [S.J.Res. 126] ; March 23, 1988
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DAY—
PROCLAMATION
Joint Resolution to designate March 16, 1988, as “Free-
dom of Information Day”.
Whereas a fundamental principle of our Government is
that a well-informed citizenry can reach the important
decisions that determine the present and future of the
Nation;
Whereas the freedoms we cherish as Americans are fos-
tered by free access to information;
Whereas many Americans, because they have never
known any other way of life, take for granted the
guarantee of free access to information that derives
from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States;
Whereas the guarantee of free access to information
should be emphasized and celebrated annually; and
77a
Whereas March 16 is the anniversary of the birth of
James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers, who
recognized and supported the need to guarantee indi-
vidual rights through the Bill of Rights: Now, there-
fore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That March 16, 1988, is designated as “Freedom of In-
formation Day’’, and the President is authorized and re-
quested to issue a proclamation calling upon Federal,
State, and local government agencies and the people of
the United States to observe such day with appropriate
programs, ceremonies, and activities.
Approved March 23, 1988.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY-S.]J.Res. 126:
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
Vol. 133 (1987): Oct. 30, considered and passed
Senate.
Vol. 134 (1988): Mar. 15, considered and passed
House.
78a
APPENDIX T
relative salary levels of Pharmacist I employees at that
time. With the exception of Jon Dorcas, all subsequent
pharmacists who had been hired after Mr. Walker pos-
sessed considerably more hospital experience than Mr.
Walker or additional degrees in pharmacy which merited
a higher salary. This computer run reflects the fact that
Mr. Walker had been given two raises in August, 1984 and
August, 1985 when all pharmacists received an annual
percentage increase.
8. The notes on the computer payroll run were
compiled after I reviewed the applications and/or resumes
of the various incumbents in the Pharmacist I position.
My findings with respect to the white pharmacists hired
after Mr. Walker were as follows:
(a) As reflected by the application attached hereto
as Attachment 5, Melissa McGowan had over
seven years experience as a pharmacist with five
years hospital experience when she was hired in
March, 1985.
(b) As reflected by the application attached hereto
as Attachment 6, Sharon Fine had five years
hospital experience as a pharmacist, plus an ad-
ditional year as a resident at the National Insti-
tute of Health Clinical Center while she was ob-
taining her Doctor of Pharmacy degree, an ad-
vanced degree in pharmacy studies beyond the
bachelor of science degree possessed by most
pharmacists. All of this experience and her ad-
vanced degree were obtained prior to her date of
hire at Suburban in May, 1985.
(c) As reflected by the application attached hereto
as Attachment 7, Patricia Delk had three years
79a
and four months hospital experience prior to
her date of hire at Suburban in July, 1985.
As reflected by the resume attached hereto as
Attachment 8, Barbara Dowd (then Barbara
Clark) had seven years hospital experience prior
to beginning employment at Suburban Hospital
in September, 1985. Ms. Dowd held a pharmacy
license from Ohio but did not begin work at
Suburban until she had made application to con-
vert her Ohio license to a Maryland License.
As reflected by the resume attached hereto as
Attachment 9, Daniel Driver had five years and
ten months experience with 3 1/2 years hospital
80a
APPENDIX U
pharmacist Plaintiff had in mind when he drafted the
interrogatory.
Without prejudice to the foregoing objections to In-
terrogatory No. 22, Defendant Finnerty states that Berj
Hekimian had his salary reduced in October, 1985 to
$14.72. Plaintiff should be capable of making his own
salary comparisons as he should be cognizant of his own
salary at any particular point in time.
Interrogatory No. 24.
This interrogatory seeks information about an uniden-
tified white pharmacist who Plaintiff apparently believes
was hired without possessing a Maryland Pharmacy Li-
cense. (See Interrogatory No. 23 in Exhibit “A’’) In re-
sponding to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Defendant Fin-
nerty denied that any pharmacist was hired without a
Maryland license. (See Response to Interrogatory No.
23 in Exhibit “A’’), Plaintiff nevertheless persists in
seeking information about this nonexistent pharmacist.
Defendant Finnerty cannot be expected to supplement
her response to an interrogatory simply because Plaintiff
does not like the answer he received.
Interrogatory No. 25
Plaintiff cannot “strike” a portion of Defendant Fin-
nerty’s answer to this interrogatory.
Interrogatory No, 21
Why was the salary of the said pharmacist reduced?
Response to Interrogatory No. 21
Defendant Finnerty objects to this interrogatory on
the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without preju-
dice to the foregoing objection, Defendant Finnerty re-
8la
sponds as follows: The salary was reduced for one white
pharmacist because the pharmacist did not work in all
areas of the pharmacy department.
Interrogatory No. 22
Was the reduced salary of the said pharmacist still
higher than the salary of Plaintiff James G. Walker?
(Base pay).
Response to Interrogatory No. 22
Defendant Finnerty objects to this request on the
grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without preju-
dice to the foregoing objections, Defendant Finnerty
responds to this interrogatory by stating that she is not
able to compare salaries without more specific informa-
tion.
Interrogatory No. 23
From April 1, 1984 to May 31, 1986, was, at any
time, a white person hired as pharmacist without pos-
sessing a Maryland Pharmacy License? (hired at Sub-
urban and worked without the Maryland license)
Response to Interrogatory No. 23
No.
Interrogatory No. 24
Was the salary of the said person without the Mary-
land Pharmacy License higher than the salary of Plain-
tiff James G. Walker? (base pay)
Response to Interrogatory No. 24
Defendant Finnerty incorporates herein by reference
her response to Interrogatory No. 23.
Interrogatory No. 25
Were other white pharmacists hired subsequent to
Plaintiff James G. Walker with base salaries higher than
the base salary of the Plaintiff? (each base salary of each
white pharmacist)
82a
Response to Interrogatoryv No. 25
Defendant Finnerty objects to this interrogatory on
the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous. Without
prejudice to the foregoing objections, Defendant Fin-
nerty responds to this interrogatory as follows: White
pharmacists with greater experience levels than Plaintiff
James G. Walker were hired subsequent to the hiring of
James G. Walker with base salaries higher than that of
Plaintiff.
Interrogatory No. 26
Did another white pharmacist submit a letter to De-
fendant Dalton Williamson refusing to work in the P.O.
Section?
Response to Interrogatory No. 26
Defendant Finnerty objects to this interrogatory on
the grounds that it is not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without preju-
dice to the foregoing interrogatory, Defendant Finnerty
responds as follows: No.
Interrogatory No. 27
Was the salary of the said white pharmacist reduced?
Response to Interrogatory No. 27
Defendant Finnerty incorporates herein by reference
her response to Interrogatory No. 26.
Interrogatory No. 28
Was the salary of the said white pharmacist greater
than the salary of the Plaintiff James G. Walker? (base
pay)
83a
APPENDIX V
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
AT BALTIMORE -
C.A. No. JH-86-962
James G, Walker,
Plaintiff
V.
Suburban Hospital Association, et al,
Defendants
DOCUMENT TO BE FILED WITH PLAINTIFF’S
RESPONSE MAILED OCTOBER 19, 1988
COUNSELING MEMO ROBERT JACKSON, JR.
The above Document is hereby presented.
Respectfully submitted
James G, Walker, R.Ph., J.D.
1412 Whittier Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20012
Mailed October 22, 1988, postage prepaid to:
Office of the Clerk
101 W. Lombard Street Room 409
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
James G. Walker
84a
SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
COUNSELING MEMO
Name: Robert Jackson, Jr. Position: Pharmacist I
Department: Pharmacy Supervisor: M.F. Jefferson,
This is a: Dur. Ficy.
1. WRITTEN WARNING _ (X)
2. PROBATION ( )
3. SUSPENSION [> ee
4. INVOLUNTARY (X) sified
TERMINATION
SUBJECT: (See Policy on Termination Categories for
specific offenses)
PERIOD OF POOR SERVICE REFERENCED BELOW
IS: FROM 7/16/84 to: 11/16/84
SPECIFY SUPPORTING DETAILS: Employee’s proba-
tion period ended 10-16-84; given 30-day extension at
that time, with problems pointed out at that time; em-
ployee is a competent pharmacist; has been warned con-
cerned not answering telephone; still prefers to have
someone else answer the phone, preferably technicians;
too slow for a staff pharmacist; doesn’t seem to be able
to prioritize work; still taking too much time on smoke
breaks; not very much of a team player; has trouble with
being independent at times; may work out better in a
slower operation; when doing IV’s, has problem doing
more than one thing at a time; expects technicians to do
their work and part of his; even complained because he
did not have the best technicians working with him.
REPETITION OF THIS OR A SIMILAR OFFENSE
MAY CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION.
Employee Signature: Date:
Supervisor’s Signature /s/ Mr. Franklin Jefferson 11-15-84
Witness: /s/ Dalton S. Williamson
EMPLOYEE DID NOT SIGN /s/ Franklin Jefferson
85a
APPENDIX W
[Filed Dec. 28, 1988]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Civil No. JH-86-962
JAMES GEORGE WALKER
v.
SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et al.
JUDGMENT ORDER
Upon de novo consideration of the record, the Report
and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Deb-
orah K. Chasanow dated December 13, 1988, plaintiff's
objections filed thereto dated December 21, 1988, and
defendants’ ‘Petition for Modification” filed December
21, 1988, it is this 27th day of December, 1988, by the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
ORDERED:
1. That the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation
BE, and the same hereby IS, AFFIRMED and ADOPTED;
2. That defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
§ 1981 and contract claims BE, and the same hereby IS,
GRANTED;
3. That defendant Lloyd Green be allowed to join
defendants’ motion for summary judgment;
4. That plaintiff’s tort claim be DISMISSED without
prejudice;
5. That the Clerk close this case; and
86a
6. That the Clerk mail copies of this Order to the plain-
tiff, counsel of record, and Magistrate Chasanow.
/s/ Joseph C. Howard
Joseph C. Howard
United States District Judge
87a
APPENDIX X
CLERK’S CERTIFICATE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND, to wit:
I, JOSEPH A. HAAS, Clerk of the United States Dis-
trict Court for the District of Maryland, do hereby cer-
tify that the documents submitted under this certificate,
VOLUME I — Case Papers
Volume 2 — Case papers
Volume 3 — Case papers
Volume 4 — Case papers/exhibits filed separately
are the true record and proceedings on file in my office,
constitute the Record on Appeal in the therein entitled
case of WALKER V. SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOC.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I hereunto
set my hand and affix the Seal of
said District Court this
25th day of January, 1989
[SEAL] JOSEPH A. HAAS
Clerk of said District Court
BY /s/ Lisa E, Zyltata
Deputy Clerk of said District Court
a ee
88a
JH-86-962
PLAINTIFFS
James George WALKER
DEFENDANTS
SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et al.
Joan FINERTY
Paul QUINN
James GARY
Bernadette WELCH
Charles STEWART
Lloyd GREEN
Dalton WILLIAMSON
Eric E. JOHNSON
Heidi Christ! MARCHAND
Aester HAILU
CAUSE
(Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which the case is filed
and write a brief statement of the case)
42, U.S.C., SECTION 1983 — JOBS
ATTORNEYS
(For Plaintiffs)
Pro Se
7849 Eastern Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910
1412 Whittier Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20012
(202) 723-0593
(For Defendants)
Paul M. Lusky
John G. Kruchko
89a
Kathleen A. Talty
Law Offices of John G. Kruchko
606 Toson Towers
28 W. Allegheny Ave.
Baltimore, MD 21204
321-7310
Date NR
Proceedings
Sept. 28 74 Order (Howard, J.) dated September 26,
Oct 05
Oct 14
Oct 14
75
76
77
1988 “ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING”
the Report and Recommendation (of
Chasanow, U.S. Mag.); “DENYING” Re-
quest of Defendant re: attorney’s fee
incurred against Plaintiff’s Motion for
Protective Order; “GRANTING” Request
of Defendant re: attorney’s fees and
expenses incurred regarding Plaintiff’s
aborted deposition of 8-17-88; “DIRECT-
ING” Plaintiff to pay the sum of $3,-
240.00 in expenses and attorney’s fees to
the Defense attorneys within 45 days as
therein set forth. (c/m 9-29-88 mrw)
(E.0.D. 10-03-88 mrw)
Notice of Plaintiff of paying Three Thous-
and Two Hundred Forty Dollars ($3,-
240.00) to Defendants’ Attomeys John
G. Kruchko and Paul M. Lusky as Ordered
by Court September 26, 1988. (c/s)
Report and Recommendation of Chasa-
now, D. (U.S. Mag.) dated October 13,
1988 (c/m by Chambers 10-13-88 mm)
(EOD 10-17-88) mrw)
Order (Chasanow, D. U.S. Mag.) dated
October 13, 1988 “DENYING” request
Date NR
Octl4 78
Oct19 79
Oct. 20 80
Oct. 24 81
Oct. 24 82
90a
Proceedings
of Defendant that Plaintiff appear for
Deposition is denyed as Moot; “DENY-
ING” Motion of Defendant for Sanctions
Re: Attorneys fees and “GRANTING” as
to Out-of-Pocket expenses and “DIRECT-
ING” Plaintiff to pay $35.00 to Defense
attorney within +5 days as therein set
forth. (c/m by Chambers 10-13-88 mm)
(EOD 10-17-88 mrw)
Motion of Defendants Exclusing GREEN,
for Summary Judgment, Memorandum
and Exhibit A, B and Attachment 1 & 2,
C and Appendix to Memorandum of Law.
(Exhibits and Attachments with Appen-
dix filed separately) (c/s to Chambers.
U.S. Mag. c/hand delivered.)
Notice of Plaintiff of Paying Thirty Five
Dollars to Attorney John Krunchko and
Paul Lusky as Ordered by U.S. Magistrate
Chasanow October 13, 1988, (c/s) Both
Response of Plaintiff to Motion of Defen-
dant for Summary Judgment. (c/s to
Chambers and U.S. Mag.)
Notice of Plaintiff of paying Three Hun-
dred Eighty Dollars and Fifty three cents.
($380.53) for the Deposition and Prelimi-
nary Corrections for the Deposition, and
Attachments. (c/s to Chambers and U.S.
Mag. )
Response document of Plaintiff mailed
October 19, 1988 and Counseling Memo.
(c/s to Chambers & U.S. Mag.)
Date NR
Oct. 25 83
Nov 04 84
Novl0O = 85
1986
March 24 1 -
Apr 8 2
Aprl6 3
Apr. 24 4
9la
Proceedings
Reply Memorandum of Defendant to Op-
position of Plaintiffs to its Motion for
Summary Judgment and Exhibit A. (c/s
to Chambers and U.S. Mag.)
Order (Howard, J. dated November 2,
1988 “ADOPTING” Report and Recom-
mendation of Magistrate Chasanow dated
October 13, 1988; and “DENYING” Mo-
ion of Defendant to dismiss as therein set
forth. (c/m 11-04-88 mrw) (EOD 11-07-
88 mrw)
Corrections of Reporting of Plaintiff er-
rors of Deposition of September 20, 1988
(c/s)
Complaint.
Order (Howard, J.) dated April 7, 1986
“DIRECTING” Clerk to withhold issu-
ance of process until the plaintiff files
an amended complaint, as therein set
forth; “DIRECTING” Plaintiff to file
amended complaint as therein set forth.
(c/m 4/11/86 slh) (EOD 4/11/86 slh)
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Summons issued. (STEWART & SUBUR-
BAN HOSP. each served 5/16/86; JOHN-
SON SERVED 5/10/86; MARCHAND
served 5/10/86; WILLIAMSON-5/8/86;
FINERTY & GARY - 5/7/86; GREEN -
5/5/86; HAILU - UNEXECUTED;
WELCH & QUINN - 5/5/86)
Date
May 16
May 27
May 27
June 2
June 2
June 12
June 12
June 19
June 23
June 27
July 2
NR
Or
10
11
12
92a
Proceedings
Appearance of John G. Kruchko and
Kathleen A. Talty as counsel for Defen-
dants.
Motion of Defendants to Dismiss and
Memorandum. (c/s)
Notices (11) of Acknowledgment of Re-
ceipt of Summons and Complaint and
U.S. Marshal Returns Attached.
Response (Points & Authority) to Motion
of Defendants to Dismiss (Ic/s)
Request of Plaintiff for reissuance of sum-
mons and complaint as to Defendant
AESTER HAILU
SECOND Summons issued as to Defen-
dant AESTER HAILU.) (Served 6/27/86)
(see #16)
Reply of Defendants to Plaintiffs Points
and Authority to Deny Defendants Mo-
tion to Dismiss. (c/s)
Motion of Plaintiff for Default Judgment
against Defendants DALTON WILLIAM-
SON and ERIC JOHNSON and Points and
Authorities.
Motion of Defendants for a Protective
Order and Memorandum.
Motion of Plaintiff to Submit Supple-
mental Points and Authorities (1c/s)
Reply of Defendants to Motion of Plain-
tiff for Default Judgment (c/s)
Date
July 2
July 8
July 10
* *
July 3
Nov. 13
1987
Feb 27
20
21
93a
Proceedings
Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt
of Summons and Complaint as to Defend-
ant AESTER HAILU and Attachment.
Points and Authorities of Plaintiff in Res-
ponse to Reply of Defendant to Motion
of Plainuff for Default Judgment. (c/s)
Motion of Plaintiff for Order Compelling
Answers to Interrogatories, and Produc-
tion of Documents by Defendants FIN-
NERTY and MARCHAND and Attach-
ments.
Points and Authorities of Plaintiff in res-
ponse to Motion of Defendants for Pro-
tection Order. (c/s)
Order (Howard, J.) Dated: 12/13/86
Referring case to DANIEL E. KLEIN,
U.S., MAGISTRATE, for consideration of
all pending motions, holding a hearing, if
warranted, and proposing findings of fact
and conclusions of law in the form of a
report and recommendation regarding the
resolution of same. (c/m_ 12/3/86-aj)
(E.0.D. 12/4/86-TL)
Memorandum and Order (Klein, U.S. Mag-
istrate) “DIRECTING” defendants to file
a Motion for Summary Judgment within
twenty (20) days of the date of this order;
“DIRECTING” plaintiff to set forth with
particularity the facts supporting his 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 claim within 20 days
Date
Mar 19
Mar 19
Apr 01
Apr 29
NR
22
23
24
20
94a
Proceedings
of the date of this order; “DIRECTING”
plaintiff to set forth with particularity
the facts supporting his 42 U.S.C. Section
1985(3) claim; “DIRECTING” defend-
ants to file a motion for summary judg-
ment under the fifth and fourteenth
amendments, ‘“‘DIRECTING” plaintiff to
set forth with particularity the fact sup-
porting his Fifth and Fourteenth Amend-
ment claims and his 42 U.S.C. Section
1981 claim, “DIRECTING” plaintiff to
set forth with particularity the facts sup-
porting his claims for harmful exposure
and breach of contract and the jurisdic-
tional bases, “DENYING” Motion of
plaintiff to compel and “GRANTING”
Motion of defendant for Protective Order.
(c/m 2-27-87 jnf) (EOD 3-7-87 law)
Response of plaintiff to Memorandum
and Order dated February 27, 1987.
(c/s)
Motion of defendants for partial summary
judgment; memorandum and_ affidavit.
(c/s)
Marginal Order (Chasanow, U.S. Magis-
trate) “DENYING” Motion of plaintiff
for default judgment against DALTON
WILLIAMSON and ERIC JOHNSON.
(c/m & EOD 4-3-87 law) (See paper #12)
Report and Recommendation of U.S.
Magistrate Deborah K. Chasanow. (c/m
by Chambers) (EOD 4-30-87 law)
Date
May 15
May 26
May 26
May 26
NR
26
27
28
29
June 02 30
June 22 31
July 6
32
95a
Proceedings
Objections of plaintiff to Magistrate’s
Report and Recommendation. (c/s)
Motion of plaintiff leave to submit addi-
tional jurisdiction under Civil Rights Act
of 1866. (c/s)
Memorandum (Howard, J.). (c/m. & EOD
5/29/87 vab)
Order (Howard, J.) dated May 22, 1987
DISMISSING plaintiff’s claim based on 42
U.S.C. Section 1981 and 1985(3), plain-
tiff’s contract and tort claims; GRANT-
ING partial summary judgment for the
defendants as to plaintiff’s claims based
on 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the fifth
and fourteenth amendments; and D/J/S-
MISSING plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. Section
1982 and Title VII claims. (c/m, EOD &
Microfilmed 5/29/87 vab) closed Law
Petition of plaintiff for a rehearing on the
order of Judge Howard dated May 22,
1987 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 76(b), (c/s)
Marginal Order (Howard, J.) dated June
19, 1987 “DENYING” petition of plain-
tiff for a rehearing on the order of Judge
Howard dated May 22, 1987. (c/m
6-23-87 vab) (EOD 6-25-87 law)
Notice of Appeal of Plaintiff. (Filing Fee
Paid) (C/M 7-16-87 mrw) (T.P.O.F. &
D/S mailed 7-14-87.)
Apr. 18
May 3
May 12
May 25
May 25
NR
33
34
36
37
38
96a
Proceedings
Record on Appeal transmitted to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Cir-
cuit, Richmond, VA. (Volume 1)
Docketing Statement and TPOF noting
that no transcripts are required.
Attested copy of the Order of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
“AFFIRMING” in part, “REVERSING”
in part and “REMANDING”’ case to the
District Court as therein set forth.
Complete record returned to U.S. Dis-
trict Court.
SCHEDULING ORDER (Howard, J.)
dated 5-3-88. (c/m Chambers) (EOD
5-4-88 bbe)
ANSWER OF SUBURBAN HOSPITAL
ASSOCIATION (“SUBURBAN”), JOAN
FINNERTY, PAUL QUINN, JAMES
GARY, BERNADETTE WELCH, CHAR-
LES STEWART, LLOYD GREENE,
DALTON WILLIAMSON, ERIC E.
JOHNSON, HEIDI CHRISTL MAR-
CHAND and AESTER HAILU to AMEN-
DED COMPLAINT. (c/s)
Response of Plaintiff to Defendants
‘‘ANSWER to Amended Complaint: (c/s)
Motion of Plaintiff to Strike each Defense
and all Defenses of each Defendant and
all Defendants in “Answer to Amended
Complaint. (1c/s)
Date
June 1
June 6
June 9
June 10
June 10
June 10
June 10
July 1
NR
39
+0
4+]
42
43
+4
45
+6
97a
Proceedings
Motion of Defendants’ for Adjustment to
Scheduling Order & Exhibit A. (c/s)
Motion of Plaintiff to insert word in
paragraph 35 of his Response dated May
23, 1988. (c/s)
Letter Order (Howard, J.) dated 6/7/88,
advising Plaintiff to inform the court as
to whether he desires trial by jury. (c/m
by chambers) (EOD 6/9/88 gez)
Request of Plainiff that a Subpoena go to
the Maryland State Board of Pharmacy
for Determining the Date of Authoriza-
tion for Barbara Jeanne Dowd (Nee Clark)
to Practice Pharmacy in the State of
Maryland. (c/s)
Objection of Plaintiff to Defendants’
Motion for Adjustment to Scheduling
Order Jury Trial (c/s)
Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Defendant
HEIDI MARCHAND to Answer Inter-
rogatory and for Sanctions Against De-
fendant MARCHAND for Not Answer-
in the Interrogatory. (c/s)
Motion of Plaintiff to Compel Defendant
JOAN FINNERTY to Answer Interro-
gatories and to Produce Documents and
for Sanctions Against Defendant FIN-
NERTY for not Answering and not Pro-
ducing the said Requests. (c/s)
Motion of Plaintiff to present zeroxed
copies of documents pursuant to federal
rule of civil procedure 1004(1)(2)(3). (c/s)
Date
July 1
July 11
July 20
Aug 02
Aug 03
Aug 10
NR
47
48
49
98a
Proceedings
Response of Plaintiff to Defendant’s
Opposition to motion to compel and
attachments (c/s)
Motion of Plaintiff to cite the very recent
United States Supreme Court Court
Decision No. 86-6139 Decided June 29,
1988. (c/s chambers and Chasanow)
Motion of Plaintiff for Protective Order
and reasons for Denying Defendant’s tak-
ing a deposition and Request for Produc-
tion of Documents. (c/s)
Order (Howard, J.) dated July 29, 1988
“REFERRING” case to U.S. Magistrate
Chasanow, to hear as appropriate and
determine all discovery disputes in this
case; and to conduct proceedings as ap-
propriate and submit recommendations
for the disposition of all motions to dis-
miss or motions for summary judgment
that have been filed prior to or follow-
ing this Order of Reference. (c/m 8-5-88
bbe) (E.0.D. 8-8-88 mrw)
Opposition of Defendants to Motion of
Plaintiffs for Protective Order and Motion
to Compe! Plaintiff to appear and produce
documents at his deposition and Exhibits
A & B. (c/s)
Reply of Plaintiff to Opposition of De-
fendants to its Motion for Protective
Order (c/s Chambers & Mag.)
Date
Aug 10
Aug 15
Aug 16
Aug 19
NR
53
99a
Proceedings
Memorandum and Order (Chasanow, U.S.
Mag) 1) “DENYING” Motion of Plaintiff
to Strike Answers to Amended Com-
plaint; 2) “DEFERRING” Ruling on jury
trial issue; 3) “GRANTING” Motion of
Plaintiff to insert word contributory;
4) “DENYING” Motion of Plaintiff to
compel Heidi Marchan to answer inter-
rogatory and for sanctions; 5) “DENY-
ING” Motion of Plaintiff to compel de-
fendant Joan Finnerty to answer interro-
gatories as therein set forth; 6) “DENY-
ING” pleading #46 of Plaintiff as im-
proper and unnecessary; 7) “DENYING”
Pleading #48 of plaintiff as improper and
unnecessary; 8) “DENYING” Motion of
Plaintiff for protective order (#49) and
opposition of Defendant (51) (C/M By
Mag. Chambers) (EOD 8/12/88 feh)
Appeal of Plaintiff from Decision of U.S.
Magistrate Chasanow dated April 10,
1988 (c/s to Chambers and U.S. MAG.)
ORDER (Howard, J.) dated August 15,
1988 “DENYING” Motion of Plaintiff
for Protective Order. (c/m 8-17-88 vab)
(E.0.D. 8-18-88 mrw)
Opposition of Defendants to Appeal of
Plaintiff from Decision of U.S. Mag.;
Request of Defendants for Plaintiff to
clarify his obligations in conformance
with U.S. Mag.’s Order; Request for an
award of expenses; and Exhibits A &
B. (c/s)
Date
Aug 24
Aug 24
Aug 24
Aug 24
Aug 29
Sept 1
Or
©
60
61
62
100a
Proceedings
Motion of Defendant for Adjustment to
Scheduling Order (c/s to Chambers &
U.S. Mag.)
Status Report of Plaintiff. (c/s to Cham-
bers and U.S. Mag.)
Response of Plaintiff to Defendants’
Response to Plaintiff's Request for
Production of Documents. (c/s to Cham-
bers and U.S. Mag.)
Response of Plaintiff to Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiff's Appeal from
Decision of U.S. Magistrate Chasanow;
Request of Plaintiff for an Order to Clar-
ify his Obligations in Conformance with
U.S, Magistrate’s Order; Request of Plain-
tiff for Award of Expenses. (c/s to Cham-
bers and U.S. Mag.)
Objections of Plaintiff to Motion of De-
fendant’s for Adjustment to Scheduling
Order. (c/s to Chambers and U.S. Mag.)
and Attachments.
ORDER (Howard, J) (dated 8/31/88)
ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING Order of
Magistrate Chasanow, in full; Directing
Plaintiff to attend the deposition, as
therein set forth, within ten days of the
date of this Order; REFERRING Request
of Defendants for attorneys fees to Magis-
trate Chasanow (c/m 9/2/88 mw) (E.O.D.
9/6/88 jf)
Date
Sept 6
Sept. 8
Sept. 14
Sept 15
Sept 16
Sept 19
Sept 19
Sept 20
Sept 21
66
67
68
69
70
10la
Proceedings
Report and Recommendation of U.S.
Magistrate Deborah K. Chasanow. (c/m
Chambers 9-6-88)
Motion and Order (Chasanow, U.S. Magis-
trate), dated 9-8-88, directing that the dis-
covery cutoff date shall be changed from
9-10-88 to 9-15-88. (c/m 9-8-88 cham-
bers) (EOD 9-9-88 hsg)
Objection (Notice) of Plaintiff to the
Order of Howard, J. dated 8-31-88 and
U.S. Mag. Chasanow dated 9-8-88 re:
Changes in Deposition dates (c/s)
Motion of Defendants to Dismiss or, In
the Alternative, Motion for Revised
Scheduling Order and Sanctions and Ex-
hibits A thru J. (c/s)
Objection of Defendants to Report and
Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Chas-
anow dated September 6, 1988 and Ex-
hibit A. (c/s to Chambers and U.S. Mag.)
Objections of Plaintiff to Report and Rec-
ommendation of U.S. Magistrate. (c/s to
Chambers & U.S. Magistrate)
Supplemental Status Report of Plaintiff.
(c/s to Chambers & U.S. Magistrate)
Response of Plaintiff to motion of de-
fendants to dismiss. (c/s to Chambers
& U.S. Magistrate)
SCHEDULING ORDER (Howard, J.)
dated September 20, 1988 (C/M by
Chambers) (E.0.D. 9-30-88 MRW)
Date
Sept 26
Sept 28
Sept 28
Oct 05
Oct 14
NR
72
73
~)
ut
102a
Proceedings
Additions to Supplemental Status Report
of Plaintiff. (c/s Chambers & Mag.)
Order (Letter) (Howard, J.) dated Sep-
tember 23, 1988 “REVISING” Order of
9-20-88 re: Deadline for filing Motions to
be set as October 14, 1988. (c/m 9-29-88
mrw) (E.0.D. 10-03-88 mrw)
Order (Howard, J.) dated September 26,
1988 “ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING”
the Report and Recommendation (of
Chasanow, U.S. Mag.); “DENYING”
Request of Defendant re: attorney’s
fee incurred against Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel; “GRANTING” Request of
Defendant re: attorney’s fee incurred
against Plaintuff’s Motion for Protective
Order; “GRANTING” Request of Defend-
ant re: attomey’s fees and expenses incur-
red regarding Plaintiff's aborted deposi-
tion of 8-17-88; “DIRECTING” Plaintiff
to pay the sum of $3,240.00 in expenses
and attorney’s fees to the Defense attor-
neys within 45 days as therein set forth.
(c/m 9-29-88 mrw) (E.O.D. 10-03-88
mrw)
Notice of Plaintiff of paying Three Thous-
and Two Hundred Forty Dollars ($3,-
240.00) to Defendants’ Attorneys John
G. Kruchko and Paul M. Lusky as Ordered
by Court September 26, 1988. (c/s)
Report and Recommendation of Chas-
anow, D. (U.S. Mag.) dated October 13,
Date
Oct 14
Oct 14
Oct 19
Oct 20
Oct. 24
NR
77
81
103a
Proceedings
1988 (c/m by Chambers 10-13-88 mm)
(EOD 10-17-88 mrw)
Order (Chasanow, D. U.S. Mag.) dated
October 13, 1988 “DENYING’’ request
of Defendant that Plaintiff appear for
Deposition is denyed as Moot; “DENY-
ING’”’ Motion of Defendant for Sanctions
Re: Attorneys fees and “GRANTING” as
to Out-of-Pocket expenses and “‘DIRECT-
ING” Plaintiff to pay $35.00 to Defense
attorney within 45 days as therein set
forth. (c/m by Chambers 10-13-88 mm)
(EOD 10-17-88 mrw)
Motion of Defendants Excluding GREEN,
for Summary Judgment, Memorandum
and Exhibit A, B and Attachment 1 & 2,
C and Appendix to Memorandum of
Law. (Exhibits and Attachments with
Appendix filed separately) (c/s to Cham-
bers. U.S. Mag. c/hand delivered. )
Notice of Plaintiff of Paying Thirty Five
Dollars to Attorney John Krunchko and
Paul M. Lusky as Ordered by U.S. Magis-
trate Chasanow October 13, 1988, (c/s)
Both
Response of Plaintiff to Motion of De-
fendant for Summary Judgment. (c/s to
Chambers and U.S. Mag.)
Notice of Plaintiff of paying Three Hun-
dred Eighty Dollars and Fifty three
cents. ($380.53) for the Deposition and
Preliminary Corrections for the Deposi-
Date
Oct 24
Oct 25
Nov.
Nov.
Nov
Nov
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
04
10
16
16
16
16
18
NR-
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
104a
Proceedings
tion, and Attachments. (c/s to Chambers
and U.S. Mag.)
Response document of Plaintiff mailed
October 19, 1988 and Counseling Memo.
(c/s to Chambers & U.S. Mag.)
Reply Memorandum of Defendant to
Opposition of Plaintiffs to its Motion for
Summary Judgment and Exhibit A. (c/s
to Chambers and U.S. Mag.)
Order (Howard, J. dated November 2,
1988 “ADOPTING” Report and Recom-
mendation of Magistrate Chasanow dated
October 13, 1988; and ““DENYING”’ Mo-
tion of Defendant to dismiss as therein set
forth. (c/m 11-0488 mrw) (EOD 11-07-
88 mrw)
Corrections of Reporting of Plaintiff
errors of Deposition of September 20,
1988 (c/s)
Proposed Pretrial Order of Plaintiff.
(c/s)
Jury Instructions of Plaintiff. (c/s)
Witness List of Plaintiff. (c/s)
Question to the Jury submitted by Plain-
tiff (c/s)
Submission of Additional Documents for
Evidence submitted by Plaintiff. (Nation-
al Study Commission on Cytotoxic Ex-
posure, Intravenous Admixture Incom-
patibilities.) (c/s)
Date
Nov 23
Nov. 23
Nov 29
Nov. 29
Dec 14
Dec 21
Dec 21
Dec 21
NR
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
105a
Proceedings
Motion of Defendants In Limine and
Memorandum and Exhibits A thru D.
(c/s)
Expert Witness List of Plaintiff Specific-
ally Indicated and attachments. (c/s)
Objections of Plaintiff to Motion of De-
fendant In Limine and Attachment.
(c/s)
Order (Letter) (Howard, J.) dated Nov-
ember 29, 1988 ““RESCHEDULING”’ Pre-
trial Conference from November 29, 1988
to January 3, 1989 at 4:30 P.M. and the
Trial from December 12, 1988 to January
9, 1989 as therein set forth. (c/m by
Chambers) (EOD 11-29-88 mrw)
Report and Recommendation ofChas-
anow, U.S. Magistrate Dated December
13, 1988. (c/m 12-13-88 mm) (EOD
12-15-88 mrw)
Objections of Plaintiff to Report and
Recommendation of U.S. Mag. Chasanow
dated December 13, 1988 and attach-
ments. (c/s)
Petition of Defendant for Modification
of Magistrate’s Report and Recommenda-
tion and Exhibit A.
Letter (Order) (Howard, J.) dated 12-19-
88 requesting counsel file responses and
or objections to Report and Recommen-
dation of Magistrate and rescheduling pre-
trial conference and trial. (c/m Cham-
bers) (EOD) 12-28-88 bbe)
106a
Date NR Proceedings
Dec 28 99 JUDGMENT ORDER (Howard, J.) dated
December 27, 1988 “AFFIRMING” and
“ADOPTING” Report and Recommenda-
tion of U.S. Magistrate; “GRANTING”
Motion of Defendant for summary judg-
ment on Section 1981; “ALLOWING”
Defendant LLOYD GREEN to join Mo-
tion of Defendants for Summary Judg-
ment; “DISMISSING’’ Tort Claim of
Plaintiff without prejudice; That Clerk is
to close this case as therein set forth.
(c/m 12-29-88 mrw) (EOD 1-06-89 mrw)
[{MICROFILMED DATE 7 JAN 1989]
1989
Jan 5 100 Notice of appeal filed (E.O.D. 1/9/89)
dkst/tpof sent 1/9/89 fee paid.
Jan 17 101 Docketing statement & transcript order
form received.
Jan 25 © — Complete record on appeal & NOA trans-
mitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 4th
Circuit Volumes 1 thru 4
107a
APPENDIX Y
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE 4th CIRCUIT
AT RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
No. 89-1412
Walker v. Suburban Hospital et al
APPELLANT’S RESPONSE TO APPELLEES’
STATEMENT OF JULY 28, 1989
1. In Patterson v. McLean, The Supreme Court did
not over rule Runyon v. McCrary.
2. Patterson v. McLean reinforces the right of a jury
trial IN Section 1981 Cases - especially when punitive
and compensatory damages are being sought.
3. In Patterson v. McLean, “the District Court erred
when it instructed the jury that the petitioner h
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.