Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Wright v. Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children

Supreme Court of Massachusetts
589 N.E.2d 1241 (1992)


Facts

Anita Wright (plaintiff) worked for Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children (Shriners) (defendant) an at-will employee who had received excellent evaluations throughout her employment. A former nurse employee sent a written complaint to the Shriners national headquarters about problems between the medical staff and administration. As a result, a survey team was dispatched to Shriners to look into the matter. Shriners’ hospital administrator was noticeably upset about the letter and speculated that Wright may have motivated the nurse to write the letter. The survey team interviewed employees, including Wright, who told them there were often communication problems between the medical and nursing staffs and gave specific examples. Wright’s comments were relayed to the assistant chief of staff and the survey team prepared reports of their findings. Thereafter, the hospital administrator terminated Wright. Wright sued Shriners for wrongful termination of her at-will employment in violation of public policy. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Wright and awarded her $100,000. Shriners appealed to the state’s supreme court.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Liacos, C.J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 203,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.