ROCHESTER, Minn. — Mayo Clinic Dr. Michael Joyner is suing his employer for “punitive” discipline actions against him for “problematic” statements to the media, “unprofessional” behavior and what he claims to be retaliation for his role in a whistleblowing report.

Joyner, an anesthesiologist and physiologist, has worked at Mayo Clinic since 1992 and has become a world-renowned expert in his field. Named in the lawsuit are Mayo Clinic, Mayo CEO Dr. Gianrico Farrugia and Dr. Carlos Mantilla, who heads Joyner’s department. The suit was filed in Olmsted County District Court on Monday.

Joyner is requesting a jury trial. He seeks damages in an amount to be established during the trial, and for an order for Mayo Clinic to cease its interference with his style of communication.

Joyner was disciplined in March 2023 for cited reasons that included his use of “idiomatic language” in interviews with CNN and the New York Times. Those were described in his disciplinary letter as “problematic and reflect(ing) poorly on Mayo Clinic’s brand and reputation.”

In response, Joyner pointed out that he holds the title of professor in an institution that has categorized itself with the IRS as operating “exclusively for educational purposes.” Thus, Joyner has taken the position that he is entitled to the same freedom of speech rights as educators on college campuses.

He reached out to Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a national nonpartisan and nonprofit organization focused on free speech, for help in fighting Mayo Clinic’s actions.

Joyner’s stance, that he is entitled to freedom of speech as an educator, is one part of the 56-page lawsuit. In addition, his suit claims that he was unfairly served discipline for his role in a whistleblower case, and that his request for increased compensation for a newly assigned work role was ill received and fueled retribution against him.

Mayo Clinic frames the conflict with Joyner as a 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.”

The disciplinary letter, written by Mantilla, offered two examples of how Joyner spoke to the media.

In a January 2023 CNN story reported by Elizabeth Cohen about his research related to convalescent plasma as a COVID-19 treatment, Joyner was quoted as saying that he was “frustrated” with the National Institutes of Health’s “bureaucratic rope-a-dope” and its acting as a “wet blanket” toward the use of convalescent plasma as a COVID treatment.

In addition, Joyner made comments in a June 2022 New York Times article about the long-term effects of testosterone on transgender male athletes. He was quoted saying, “There are social aspects to sport, but physiology and biology underpin it. Testosterone is the 800-pound gorilla.” Mayo Clinic’s letter described those statements as “problematic in the media and the LGBTQI+ community at Mayo Clinic.”

In his lawsuit, Joyner points out that Mayo Clinic was in the process of adding Martine Rothblatt, the multimillionaire transgender CEO of United Therapeutics Corp. and founder of SiriusXM Satellite Radio, to its board of trustees when the Times article with his testosterone quote was published.

Kalmanovitz said in an email that the Times article was not a factor in Joyner’s discipline.

“Mayo Clinic did not discipline Dr. Joyner for statements he made about testosterone or transgender athletes. Mayo disciplined Dr. Joyner for continuing to treat coworkers unprofessionally in violation of Mayo policy and for making unprofessional comments about the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) guidelines for convalescent plasma,” she wrote. “The comments to the New York Times regarding transgender athletes and testosterone were published in May of 2022, more than seven months before the 2023 disciplinary review even began. Those comments, along with the discipline from 2020, were listed to provide background and context for the issues that formed the basis of the 2023 discipline.”

The March 5, 2023, discipline letter said that Joyner’s comments were only the latest in a series of performance issues.

“This most recent incident has also allowed us to review the state of your relationship with Public Affairs. Over the years you have failed to consistently work within Mayo Clinic guidelines related to media interactions and failed to communicate in accordance with prescribed messaging,” the letter said. “Currently concerns remain with disrespectful communications with colleagues who describe your tone as unpleasant and having a ‘bullying’ quality to it.”

However, Joyner claims in his lawsuit that Mayo Clinic never provided any specific examples of his bad behavior, despite his repeated requests for them.

“Mayo weaponized its nebulous professionalism, values, and mutual respect policies by accusing Joyner of unspecific violations, including that his tone was ‘unpleasant’ and had ‘a bullying quality to it,” according to the lawsuit. “Yet Joyner’s personnel record is filled with outstanding reviews for his teaching, research, and overall job performance.”

Mayo Clinic suspended Joyner for one week without pay in March and withheld a scheduled raise. Joyner appealed his suspension. A committee of Mayo Clinic physician peers upheld the discipline action.

In the lawsuit, Joyner brought up an issue that was not part of earlier statements about Mayo Clinic disciplining him.

He claims that the discipline by Farrugia and Mayo Clinic originated, in part, due to retaliation for his role in a whistleblowing case. In the summer of 2020, Joyner reported to Dr. R. Scott Wright that two employees of MITRE Corp., a McLean, Va.-based nonprofit that Mayo Clinic was working with on the convalescent plasma research, tried to illegally access Mayo Clinic patient data. Wright is chairman of the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board.

Joyner states that his report resulted in a formal complaint against MITRE. Mayo Clinic formally sanctioned MITRE in September 2020.

Joyner’s lawsuit states: “In 2020, Joyner blew the whistle by reporting a Mayo business partner’s attempt to unlawfully access and use protected patient data. Joyner’s whistleblowing complicated Mayo CEO Farrugia’s attempt to increase Mayo’s profits. Farrugia and Mayo retaliated, labeling Joyner’s whistleblowing ‘unprofessional’ to pretextually mask Mayo’s unlawful retaliation.”

In the wake of Joyner’s complaints about MITRE, he claims that Farrugia initiated a “pretextual disciplinary process against him” and a letter of reprimand described Joyner’s actions as “unprofessional.” In 2021, Joyner filed an internal retaliation complaint against Farrugia for the 2020 reprimand. That, he said, resulted in an additional reprimand against him for complaining and displaying a “lack of professionalism.”

Neither the MITRE Corp. nor Mayo Clinic directly responded to questions about the incident.

In the lawsuit, Joyner described the MITRE situation as occurring during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic, when he was reportedly working “16-20 hours per day, often seven days per week for months” to keep up with his regular work at Mayo Clinic as well as leading research into convalescent plasma as a COVID treatment.

During that time, he claims that Farrugia requested that Joyner work with other Mayo executives to develop a business plan to make the convalescent plasma program into a profitable business for Mayo Clinic. Joyner stated in the complaint that he requested increased compensation for that additional workload.

“Farrugia responded by disingenuously misconstruing Joyner’s request as a threat to quit leading the CPP. Joyner had not made this threat and other Mayo executives recognized that Joyner had not threatened to quit,” according to Joyner’s lawsuit.

In an email, Mayo Clinic’s Kalmanovitz described the exchange between Joyner and Farrugia much differently.

“Mayo intends to show that in 2020, in the heart of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Joyner gave Mayo an ultimatum, demanding that Mayo agree to give him a seven-figure payment within 48 hours,” she wrote.

Neither Mayo Clinic nor MITRE responded to questions about whether the two organizations are still working together. Dr. John Noseworthy, who preceded Farrugia as Mayo Clinic’s CEO, is a MITRE board member.

In 2022, MITRE issued a press release stating that it was working with Mayo Clinic on the use of artificial intelligence in health care.

“As a trusted enabler, MITRE brings the unique ability to convene the right people in the right time and place,” said Mayo Clinic Platform President Dr. John Halamka in a press release. “Mayo sees this kind of collaboration as what drives societal change, when multiple stakeholders work together to make magic happen at the intersection of disciplines.”

As the dispute between Joyner and Mayo Clinic moves from clinic board rooms to the courtroom, Joyner remains an employee of Mayo Clinic. Joyner’s attorney, Kellie Miller of Allen Harris Law, a firm known for working with FIRE in freedom of speech issues, said in an email that Joyner has no plans to leave Mayo Clinic.

“Dr. Joyner is currently and plans to remain an employee at Mayo. He hopes his lawsuit will promote positive change at Mayo, restoring trust in an institution where he has worked for 36 years of his distinguished career,” Miller said.

Related Articles

Families of 5 men killed in officer-involved shootings sue BCA over case file delays

Minnesota adds 7,000 jobs in October; unemployment at 3.2%

More than $34.2 million raised on Give to the Max Day as Como Zoo reveals baby giraffe’s name

Give to the Max Day was Thursday. Here are 11 things to know on its 15th anniversary.

Minnesota adds 20 wild rice lakes and streams to impaired list