THE WHOLE STORY

Sister Plante Files Suit Against the Samaritans of Fall River/New Bedford

n November 4, 1994, Sister Plante and Yvonne George jointly filed suit in Norfolk Superior Court in Massachusetts against the Samaritans of Fall River/New Bedford, Inc. The lawsuit, Yvonne George and Beverly Plante v. The Samaritans of Fall River/New Bedford, Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 94-02369, named Executive Director Ellie Leite, Attorney Peter L. Paull Jr., and Michael Moran, the past President of the Board of Directors. The suit alleged that the members individually and in unison acted in a malicious and outrageous manner to defame the characters of the plaintiffs. The actions referred to in the suit included the July 19, 1994 meeting with Bishop O'Malley and statements made under other circumstances, such as Atty. Paull's alleged remarks to Sgt. David Andrews about the Rosses when returning Mr. Andrews' donation check. At the time the suit was filed, Sister Plante retained Patrick McCormack as counsel. On December 23, 1994, the Samaritans/FRNB responded through counsel to the complaint.

During the next three months, Atty. Patrick noticed (by subpeona) Barbara Mackowski, who had been at the July 19, 1994 meeting, for deposition, and took her testimony for Sister Plante's case. Meanwhile, counsel for the Samaritans/FRNB noticed Yvonne George, Edward J. Florino, and Sgt. David Andrews and took their depositions. On February 27, 1995, counsel for the Samaritans/FRNB filed a 30(b)(6) deposition against Carlton Memorial Hospital to obtain Sister Plante's medical records for their case. They also collected numerous affidavits from Samaritans/FRNB Board members. Sister Plante herself was noticed to appear for a deposition in order to give testimony for the Samaritans/FRNB's case, but her counsel did not schedule her for deposition.

As this was proceeding, Sister Plante was referred to Atty. Robert George, a high-profile trial lawyer who had represented defendants in numerous well-publicized and controversial cases in the Boston area. Robert George expressed enthusiasm for taking on Sister Plante's case and arranged to waive some of his usual fees (although Sister Plante and her supporters paid Atty. George the substantial retainer he requested for his services). Atty. George suggested that Yvonne withdraw from the suit as co-plaintiff so that Sister Plante could argue her personal case, that had resulted in termination from her job, more strongly. This was agreed, and Sister Plante retained Robert George as her counsel. He filed his appearance in the case on April 3, 1995.

On the same date, April 3, 1995, counsel for the Samaritans/FRNB filed a motion to dismiss the demand for punitive damages included in Sister Plante's lawsuit. Sister Plante responded with a motion to oppose this, arguing that she had suffered measurable financial loss as well as emotional distress.

On April 10, 1995, counsel for the Samaritans/FRNB filed a motion to "compel production of documents" from the plaintiffs--specifically, to force Sister Plante's counsel to schedule her deposition for their side. On April 18, the court allowed the motion and ruled that Sister Plante must, indeed, show up to give her deposition for the defendants, or jeopardize her entire case. This ruling was blissfully ignored by Atty. George. Sister Plante herself was both willing and eager to give deposition testimony in which she could tell her side of the story, but her attorney still failed to schedule Sister Plante for a deposition with Samaritans/FRNB's counsel.

After more than six weeks of non-response from Atty. George, on May 26, 1995, counsel for the Samaritans/FRNB filed a motion to dismiss the entire case based on the plaintiffs' failure to produce ordered documents (that is, Sister Plante's deposition). Sister Plante filed a motion to oppose.

On June 6, 1995, Judge Connolly of the Norfolk Superior Court allowed the Samaritans/FRNB's motion to strike the demand for punitive damages from the suit against them. On June 9, however, the court granted Sister Plante an extension on the motion to produce documents to July 10, 1995. Despite this deadline, Atty. George continued to simply ignore the court order. Sister Plante was noticed for deposition, by subpoena, repeatedly without her counsel ever scheduling a date with the defendants' counsel for her testimony. In addition to this, court records show that a "pre-trial conference" of counsel for both sides was scheduled and continued at least four times, without any record that it ever took place.

On September 12, 1995--two months after the extension granted by the court in June--Atty. George answered yet another motion to compel documents by the Samaritans/FRNB. The court allowed this motion on September 14. Sister Plante appeared to give deposition testimony to defendants' counsel on November 10 and 17, 1995.

During this entire seven and a half month period, from April 3 to late November 1995, Atty. George undertook absolutely no proactive work on Sister Plante's behalf whatsoever, at least that anyone can determine. He did not engage in "discovery"--that is, aggressively demand witness testimony or other forms of information supporting his client's case. He failed to respond to motions, and jeopardized the entire case by giving the Samaritans/FRNB opportunity to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds of his ignoring the order to compel documents. He noticed no witnesses for depositions. Atty. George's legal strategy in representing Sister Plante appears to have been "if I pretend they're not there, they'll just go away." Furthermore, court records show no significant activity being taken on the case between September 1995 and March 1996--an entire six months.

During 1995 and 1996, Sister Plante called Atty. George's office two times per week, on average, asking him for updates and information on the case. She recalls actually speaking to Atty. George himself on just two occasions. His staff would invariably assure her that everything possible was being done for her case. You, the reader of this website, may speculate with as much authority as anyone else on just what Atty. George was doing for month after month after month to earn his retainer. Even counsel for the Samaritans/FRNB, James Franchek, was critical of his handling of the case.

Evidently, preventing Sister Plante from giving deposition testimony for the Samaritans/FRNB was a possible objective of Atty. George's inertia. As soon as this objective finally failed, he did notice, by subpeona, several witnesses for deposition for Sister Plante. Bishop Sean O'Malley, Father Richard Beaulieu, and Sister Rosemary Laliberte were all noticed on November 21, 1995. Their depositions were scheduled for December 11, 1995.

The Bishop, Father Beaulieu and Sister Laliberte all simply failed to show up for their depositions. The depositions were rescheduled for late December, but once again, the three witnesses failed to appear. That was the end of the matter. Although all three witnesses could have been charged with contempt of court for ignoring the subpeonas, Atty. George never aggressively pursued such action--or any other action to compel witness testimony for his client. He did not take a single witness deposition supporting Sister Plante's case for the entire time he represented her. The only deposition ever taken was that of Barbara Mackowski, who had been deposed by Atty. McCormack. Atty. George never submitted this deposition to the court as evidence. Sister Plante had absolutely no documentation of any kind to support her case except her own affidavit, in which she told the story as she knew it, sometimes according to what she had been told by others. Her attorney should have used her affidavit as a foundation for gathering direct supporting evidence from witnesses, including any and all of the persons present at the July 19, 1994 meeting with Bishop O'Malley. By itself, Sister Plante's affidavit was not admissible, and counsel for the Samaritans/FRNB certainly knew this. Sister Plante was left with absolutely no evidence to support her claims regarding how and why she was removed from her position, and what had been said about her to her superiors by the defendants.

Seeing that their path to victory was virtually unopposed by any action undertaken by Atty. George, on March 26, 1996 the Samaritans/FRNB filed a motion to dismiss, or to grant a summary judgment, in the Norfolk Superior Court, asking that the case against them be thrown out. Sister Plante responded by submitting a brief and an affidavit to the court, but the Samaritans/FRNB moved to strike much of the affidavit on the grounds that it was "unsupported hearsay". For the next five months, Atty. George took no action on the case, ignoring the pending deadline for the court's decision on the motion to dismiss. He made no further efforts to obtain testimony or schedule depositions, or to correct glaring flaws in the affidavits and briefs that had been filed.

On August 27, 1996, Judge Vieri Volterra granted the Samaritans/FRNB Summary Judgment in their favor, along with granting their motion to strike those portions of Sister Plante's affidavit that were ruled "hearsay". In a footnote to his decision, Judge Volterra stated that in attempting to defeat Summary Judgment, Sister Plante had had a number of strategies available to her. The most obvious, he said, would have been obtaining deposition testimony from her superiors or from the defendants. It was never brought to Judge Volterra's attention that the Bishop, Father Beaulieu, and Sister LaLiberte were subpeonaed and failed to appear.

Sister Plante Brings Suit Against the Diocese

Sister Plante was reluctant to bring suit against the Diocese of Fall River. She was a vowed religious and had devoted her life to serving the Church. At the same time, she felt that she had been treated shamefully. Her employment and housing contract with the Diocese was a civil, not a church, matter and had been egregiously violated. Sister Plante had lost her career and her reputation because of unsupported statements to her superiors by laypersons, and the Diocese had given her no due process or restitution of any kind, not even an apology. She had been unable to obtain employment in her field, despite an aggressive job search, and had reason to believe that the Diocese was actively preventing her from being hired when prospective employers checked her references. After struggling in the courts for nearly two years with her lawsuit against the Samaritans/FRNB, Sister Plante felt she had no choice but to sue the Diocese.

On February 26, 1997, Sister Plante filed Civil Action No. 97-00294 in the Bristol Superior Court in Taunton, Massachusetts. It was titled, "Beverly Plante, AKA Sister Michaelinda Plante vs. the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fall River in the person of Bishop Sean O'Malley, Corporation Sole, the Samaritans of Fall River & New Bedford Inc. in the person of Ellie Leite, individually and as a Director and a member of the Board." Count I charged the Diocese with Wrongful Termination. Count II charged the Samaritans/FRNB with Intentional Interference With Contractual Relations. At the time the suit was filed, Sister Plante still retained Atty. George as counsel.

The suit stated that on July 19, 1994, the defendant, the Samaritans/FRNB, sought and arranged a meeting with the defendant, Bishop Sean O'Malley and threatened the Diocese with a lawsuit if the plaintiff's alleged activities, which were not substantiated, did not stop. The defendants, the Samaritans/FRNB, who despite knowledge of the plaintiff's long employment for the Diocese of Fall River, and without lawful justification, interfered in the plaintiff's contractual relationship with the Diocese by engaging in improper conduct. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant, the Samaritans/FRNB's interference with the plaintiff's employment relationship with the Diocese of Fall River, Sister Plante was forced to resign from her position as Associate Superintendent of Elementary Schools thereby suffering loss of salary, renewal of contract, professional reputation, residence, and ability to seek further employment.

Atty. George still suffered from his apparent allergy to scheduling witness depositions for his client. Three months after the suit was filed, on May 19, 1997, Father Richard Beaulieu and Sister Rosemary LaLiberte were (finally) noticed for deposition and on May 21, 1997, Bishop Sean O'Malley was noticed. None of the three religious leaders appeared for their depositions. On May 20, 1997, depositions were noticed for Ellie Leite and Peter L. Paull, Jr. from the Samaritans/FRNB. However, on May 19, 1997, the Samaritans/FRNB's attorney James Franchek filed a protective order motion of witnesses Ellie Leite and Peter L. Paull Jr. with the Bristol Superior Court, precluding the taking of their depositions. He also filed a motion to dismiss Count II of the suit. Atty. Franchek stated that the allegations against the Samaritans/FRNB were already adjudicated "on the merits" in a prior action in Norfolk Superior Court. He also frugally noted that it would be in the best interest of judicial economy to minimize the cost of litigation. Judge Richard Chin agreed to hear arguments on the case by both sides in a hearing in late May.

On June 2, 1997, William J. Dailey, counsel for the Diocese and a member of the law firm representing the Sisters of Mercy, filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for Summary Judgment, on Count I of the lawsuit charging the Diocese with wrongful termination. He also filed for a protective order against the taking of depositions for Father Beaulieu and Bishop O'Malley.

While this was going on, Sister Plante decided that it was in her best interests to find new legal counsel. She retained Attys. Daniel Gindes and Susan A. Correia, who filed their appearance in the Bristol case on June 12, 1997. On the same date, Atty. George filed his withdrawal from the case.

On July 3, 1997, Judge Chin dismissed Count II of the Bristol case, which charged the Samaritans/FRNB with Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations. The Bishop, the religious leaders, and the Samaritans/FRNB were also allowed exemption from testifying as requested by their motions. The decision to dismiss stated that according to the legal rule of res judicata, defendants are protected from adjudication in any matter that has been previously decided. Since the persons, circumstances, and claims in Count II of the Bristol suit were all identical to those already adjudicated in the Norfolk matter, the Samaritans/FRNB were exempt from judgment in the present case. This left Count I, the wrongful termination charge against the Diocese, to be heard in Bristol Superior Court.

It was obvious that the complete lack of aggressive action by Atty. George in pursuing the Norfolk case over the seventeen months that he was responsible for it was haunting Sister Plante's actions now like a poisonous specter. In a desperate effort to recover from that severe disadvantage, and eliminate res judicata as grounds for dismissing the Bristol case, Sister Plante filed a motion in Norfolk Superior Court for a late appeal for Relief from Judgment in the first lawsuit. Her motion to appeal was allowed on September 10, 1997. On August 26, 1997, she filed a motion to amend her complaint in the first suit, adding the Diocese as co-defendant and making the charges conform to those in Counts I and II of the Bristol case. If Relief from Judgment was granted, the two cases could be combined, and the Samaritans/FRNB would no longer be exempt from adjudication on the merits of the present case. Their testimony could be compelled and Sister Plante would finally be able to present supporting evidence for her story. Unfortunately, it was too little, too late: such legal maneuverings should have been applied to Sister's cause long, long before.

On September 11, 1997, Bristol Superior Court Judge John Xifaras dismissed Count I of the suit against the Diocese, basing his decision on "the free exercise guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution." A civil court, the judge ruled, may not adjudicate matters involving "the internal decisions of a religious group," including "decisions on discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law." Judge Xifaras wrote, "It is not the function of the state to embroil itself in determinations of whether or not a religious member is spiritually fit for a church position." Sister Plante's counsel disputed this judgment, stating that it did not apply to her case. Her contractual relation with the Diocese was a civil matter, not a religious one, and the signed contract a legal agreement that the signers were obliged to respect. The position of Associate Superintendent of Elementary Schools is a professional post, not an ecclesiastical one. Furthermore, Sister Plante states that canonically, Bishop O'Malley is not her immediate superior, and he can only issue directives affecting her if her religious superior agrees. Judge Xifaras was not influenced by this argument. The dispute was overruled. Since the case was dismissed "with prejudice", no appeal was possible.

On February 26, 1998, Judge Volterra of Norfolk Superior Court denied Sister Plante's appeal for Relief from Summary Judgment in the Norfolk suit. While Judge Volterra stated that "there is no dispute that the alleged error was the fault of her former counsel, rather than Sr. Plante", he felt that he could not rule in her favor. He cited "the lack of merit of her defamation claim, the prejudice to the Samaritans, and the neglect being a product of conscious choice by her former counsel (given that the alleged neglect concerns the preparation of an opposition to summary judgment)". In other words, it appears that Sister Plante did not deserve relief from judgment merely because her former counsel slept through the case.

Stated simply, Sister Plante lost in court twice, not because the evidence weighed against her, but because the defendants were allowed to engage in numerous unchallenged legal maneuvers to avoid presenting any evidence at all. The first lawsuit was dismissed because Atty. George failed to engage in any discovery on his client's behalf, and over a seventeen month period did not conduct a deposition of a single witness. The second lawsuit was dismissed because the judgment on the first lawsuit enabled key witnesses to be exempted from adjudication. It was a classic Catch-22 situation.

Some Behinds Are Carefully Covered

Although Bishop O'Malley refused to give a formal deposition for either of Sister Plante's suits, he did comment on the situation. In a statement released to the media on November 19, 1995, the Bishop maintained that Sister Plante resigned voluntarily. He stated that, "she was never dismissed from her position and that she was placed on temporary leave during which time she decided to tender a letter of resignation." At no time, the Bishop said, did the Diocese ask for Sister Plante's resignation. "I did not act on this request for some time, thereby providing her with an opportunity to reconsider" (emphasis added). Contrary to this statement, Sister Plante feels that she was deliberately pressured to resign and had no other reasonable alternative. She also was evicted from her housing only two days after the date on her letter of resignation, which is a liberal interpretation of the phrase "for some time."

Bishop O'Malley further maintains that his decision to place Sister Plante on leave of absence was not made to appease the Samaritans/FRNB. As he stated in his affidavit, he was advised that Sister Plante had included Tarot cards in the poetry book and circulated material regarding the Winchester family. O'Malley stated that the Tarot cards are against the teaching of the Catholic Church. He also said that following his meeting with the Samaritans/FRNB on July 19, 1994, he spoke to Sister Plante and reviewed the information he received from Mrs. Leite and the other concerned parties. Sister Plante strongly denies this. She says that she did not even know about the Samaritans' conference with the Bishop until August when her psychiatrist informed her. The fact that the Bishop still believes that Sister Plante wrote the poems and created the Tarot card illustrations demonstrates that he never asked for her version of the story. Furthermore, the fact that the Samaritans/FRNB had evidently made several visits to Sister Plante's supervisor, Father Beaulieu, and her religious superior, Sister LaLiberte, before speaking to Bishop O'Malley was another carefully-kept secret.

Sister Plante Files Suit Against Her Attorney

Sister Plante's last resort was to file a lawsuit against her former counsel, Atty. Robert George, for breach of contract, legal malpractice and negligence. Even the Samaritans/FRNB's attorney, James Franchek, had admitted outright that George could have taken a number of steps to obtain depositions and that it was his incomprehensible lack of aggressive action throughout that contributed to the dismissal of the case. On September 23, 1998, Sister Plante filed a lawsuit against Robert George in Norfolk Superior Court. That lawsuit is now pending. Sister Plante continues to be represented by Attys. Gindes and Correia.

Follow-up

Sister Plante is currently living in Tiverton, Rhode Island. For the past seven years (beginning before her difficulties with the Samaritans/FRNB), she has been doing volunteer work for the Massachusetts Department of Social Services. Working with a three-person team out of the Fall River and New Bedford offices, Sister Plante works on the case reviews of children in foster care that are made every three to six months. She has acted as a trainer for DSS and has been recognized for her services by the agency and the Governor of Massachusetts. She estimates that she has reviewed over 650 cases. She says that even though she remains frustrated at her failure to find employment in the field of education, she finds her work with DSS to be highly rewarding.

As a vowed member of the Sisters of Mercy, Sister Plante is under a vow of poverty, and her legal fees and other expenses related to the entire affair with the Samaritans/FRNB are paid for only with the help of her supporters.

The Samaritans/FRNB have been struggling since the dismissal of the second lawsuit against them. Michael Moran continues to host his radio program in Fall River; his public editorial commentary about Sister Plante and her case has been harsh. Ellie Leite has given numerous interviews to the local media, both radio and newspapers. She has resigned from her position as Executive Director of the Samaritans of Fall River/New Bedford, although she continues to work on the hotlines and train new volunteers. Pamela Pollock has also resigned as President of the Board of Directors. Michael Moran and Peter L. Paull, Jr. are no longer members of the Board.

On July 1, 1997, the Samaritans/FRNB was forced to cut its hotline hours due to a lack of volunteer staff. Their hotlines were closed at 11:00pm, and were staffed only from 8:00am to 11:00pm each day. The Fall River/New Bedford branch was the first Samaritans chapter in the country to be forced to cut back its hours. The agency's volunteer roster had dropped from 70 in 1991 to only 34, which was not sufficient to maintain a 24-hour hotline service. In an article in the July 20, 1997 New Bedford Standard-Times, Ellie Leite attributed the problem to the downturn in the economy and the fact that fewer people are able to make a significant volunteer commitment. In addition, she added, "It's very difficult to recruit volunteers who can work an overnight shift." Samaritans volunteers are given a 38-hour training program before being put on the phones.

Mrs. Leite told the New Bedford Standard-Times that the Fall River/New Bedford branch was the only Samaritans branch to rely exclusively on volunteers. She claimed that the agency relied on donated office space and had an annual budget of $40,000, and that she herself had never accepted a salary for her position as Executive Director. It takes a certain type of person to be a Samaritan, according to Mrs. Leite. "You can train people," she said, "but you can't teach compassion and caring."

| BACK | GO TO TOP | NEXT PART |