Dr. Michael Joyner disputes Mayo Clinic's push to dismiss his lawsuit as contrary to 'law and facts'

ROCHESTER — In response to Mayo Clinic’s motion to dismiss claims made by Dr. Michael Joyner, his legal team describes the clinic’s Academic Freedom and Anti-Retaliation policies as “enforceable contracts” and alleges that CEO Dr. Gianrico Farrugia acted with malice when disciplining Joyner.

In documents filed in Olmsted County’s Third Judicial Court this week, Joyner’s attorney calls Mayo Clinic’s motion to dismiss three of Joyner's five claims on the grounds that its policies are not binding contracts as being contradicted by “the law and facts.”

Joyner, an anesthesiologist and physiologist who has worked at Mayo Clinic since 1992, is suing his employer for disciplinary action taken against him for what Mayo described as “problematic” statements to the media and “unprofessional” behavior.

Mayo Clinic suspended Joyner for one week without pay in March 2023, withheld a scheduled raise, and curtailed his availability for media interviews. Joyner appealed his suspension. A committee of Mayo Clinic physician peers upheld the disciplinary action.

He is still employed by Mayo Clinic and continues to be one of the clinic’s top researchers, bringing in millions of dollars per year in federal grants and other funding.

The heart of the lawsuit is based on Joyner's claim that Mayo Clinic "weaponized" its disciplinary system in retaliation for his part in a whistleblower case and in response to conflicts with his supervisor, Dr. Carlos Mantilla, and Farrugia. Mayo Clinic frames it as a personnel situation in which an employee spoke out of turn in the media and treated his co-workers inappropriately.

“The expression of groundbreaking and sometimes controversial scientific opinions — in articles, presentations and media interviews — permeates our 150-year history,” wrote Mayo Clinic’s Andrea Kalmanovitz in response to questions about the lawsuit. “In this case, Dr. Joyner is disingenuously invoking academic freedom as a shield to escape accountability for actions that violate Mayo policies and values.”

Joyner claims that Mayo Clinic’s actions violated its own Academic Freedom and Anti-Retaliation policies in disciplining him. The clinic has responded that the policies are not binding contracts nor did a “handshake agreement” with Mayo Clinic guarantee “permanent employment.”

Joyner’s attorneys state that Mayo Clinic’s characterization of its policies as unenforceable aspirations does not hold up.

“The law and facts contradict Mayo’s arguments. Minnesota law has long recognized employment policies like Mayo’s academic-freedom policy can be enforceable contracts. And on the facts, Dr. Joyner has successfully alleged that he was in a tenured contractual relationship with Mayo, and that Mayo breached the contract by taking adverse action against him because of what he said about his research results and conclusions, and because of his related conduct,” according to the filing. “In moving to dismiss, therefore, Mayo asks the Court to disregard the facts pleaded in the complaint, Minnesota contract law, and indeed the very concepts of tenure and academic freedom.”

Joyner’s filing also describes Farrugia as having a “well-documented personal dislike for Dr. Joyner,” which spurred him to act with malice by making false statements and disciplining Joyner.

Judge Kathy Wallace is scheduled to listen to Mayo Clinic’s motion to dismiss in a hearing on April 4. The case is scheduled to go before a jury in 2025.