The Michael Joyner Mayo Clinic lawsuit is a retaliation and breach-of-contract case brought in November 2023 by Dr. Michael Joyner, a longtime Mayo Clinic anesthesiologist and researcher, who claimed the institution suspended him and restricted his media access as payback for candid press interviews and for reporting a business partner’s attempt to access patient data. A jury sided with Mayo Clinic in February 2026 on all claims. Joyner’s legal team filed for a new trial in June 2026, and the dispute remains unresolved.
Who Michael Joyner Is
Joyner holds the Frank R. and Shari Caywood Professorship of Anesthesiology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and serves as departmental vice chair for research.1Mayo Clinic. Michael J. Joyner, M.D. He is best known publicly for leading the FDA’s Expanded Access Program for COVID-19 convalescent plasma, which enrolled more than 100,000 patients across nearly 2,800 hospitals and acute care facilities during the pandemic.2Mayo Clinic News Network. Expanded Access Program for Convalescent Plasma Discontinues Enrollment That role put him in front of reporters regularly, which is where his conflict with Mayo eventually started.
What Triggered the Discipline
Two interviews are at the center of the case. In May 2022, Joyner told the New York Times, in a story about testosterone and athletic performance in transgender athletes, that “there are social aspects to sport, but physiology and biology underpin it. Testosterone is the 800-pound gorilla.”3Medscape. Physicians Dispute With Mayo Clinic Raises Free Speech Concerns In January 2023, he told CNN that the NIH’s approval process for convalescent plasma guidelines was “bureaucratic rope-a-dope” and called the guidelines “a wet blanket.”4KTTC. Doctor’s Attorney May Not Be Done Fighting After Loss in Retaliation Lawsuit Against Mayo Clinic
Mayo officials described the remarks as unprofessional uses of “idiomatic language” that reflected poorly on the institution’s “brand and reputation.”3Medscape. Physicians Dispute With Mayo Clinic Raises Free Speech Concerns Mayo later clarified that the discipline concerned the NIH comments and his treatment of coworkers, not the transgender-athlete remarks specifically.5Inside Higher Ed. Professor Sues Mayo Over Threat to Fire Him for Interviews
A separate strand of the case dates to 2020. Joyner alleged that after he reported that MITRE Corporation, a Mayo business partner involved in the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition, had tried to access protected patient data from the plasma program, Mayo disciplined him in retaliation. Mayo characterized that 2020 discipline as a response to unprofessional behavior toward business partners and to what it called an “ultimatum” in which Joyner allegedly demanded millions of dollars within 48 hours while threatening to stop his COVID-19 work.6Post-Bulletin. Dr. Michael Joyner and Mayo Clinic to Return to Court in July
The 2023 Suspension and Media Restrictions
In March 2023, Joyner’s department chair, Dr. Carlos Mantilla, issued a Final Written Warning that suspended Joyner for one week without pay, withheld a raise, and imposed significant restrictions on his media activity.7Post-Bulletin. Joyner’s 2023 Mayo Clinic Suspension Came the Same Week as a Glowing Performance Review The letter ordered him to “cease engagement in offline conversations with reporters,” “discuss approved topics only,” and “stick to prescribed messaging.” It told him to “eliminate use of idiomatic language” and warned that further complaints would result in termination.8Inside Higher Ed. Mayo Threatens Firing Professor for Interviews and Idioms
Trial testimony later showed that Mantilla signed a positive performance review for Joyner on March 9, 2023, rating his professionalism as “meets or exceeds expectations,” and signed the suspension letter four days later. Asked why he had not mentioned the pending discipline during the review, Mantilla testified, “I was not at liberty to share.” After a January 2023 CNN appearance, Mantilla had emailed Joyner, “Amazing impact, Mike. Thank you!!!”7Post-Bulletin. Joyner’s 2023 Mayo Clinic Suspension Came the Same Week as a Glowing Performance Review
The Lawsuit
Joyner sued on November 7, 2023, in Olmsted County District Court, case number 55-CV-23-7708.9Academic Freedom Alliance. Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss Defendants were Mayo Clinic, CEO Dr. Gianrico Farrugia, and Mantilla. The complaint asserted breach of contract, promissory estoppel, retaliation, and tortious interference with contract.10Academic Freedom Alliance. AFA Announces Favorable Court Ruling for Dr. Michael Joyner Joyner argued that Mayo’s internal policies on academic freedom, anti-retaliation, and appeals procedures created enforceable contractual obligations that the institution violated when it punished him for research-based public commentary and for reporting the MITRE data-access issue.11FIRE. Complaint, Joyner v. Mayo Clinic, et al.
Mayo responded that its policies were “general statements of policy” rather than binding contracts, and that even if the academic freedom policy were contractually binding, it “expressly permits” the regulation of employee speech.12Post-Bulletin. Mayo Clinic Responds to Dr. Joyner Lawsuit by Saying Its Employee Policies Are Not Binding Contracts The clinic portrayed Joyner as confrontational toward colleagues and pointed to the 2020 pay ultimatum as evidence that his grievances were personal.13KIMT. Doctor Loses Lawsuit Accusing Mayo Clinic of Retribution Over Covid, Sex Differences
The Academic Freedom Alliance committed to funding 100 percent of Joyner’s legal costs through trial, treating the case as a test of researcher speech protections at private institutions.14Academic Freedom Alliance. Michael Joyner’s Case Against the Mayo Clinic Is Headed to Trial
Pretrial Rulings That Shaped the Trial
In July 2024, Judge Kathy Wallace denied most of Mayo’s motion to dismiss and allowed four of Joyner’s five claims to proceed. The court dismissed the claim that Mayo’s academic freedom policy itself created a contractual obligation, but held that other policies, particularly the anti-retaliation policy and internal appeals procedure, could constitute enforceable promises. The court also found that Mantilla may have acted with “malice and bad faith” in disciplining Joyner after criticizing his CNN interview.10Academic Freedom Alliance. AFA Announces Favorable Court Ruling for Dr. Michael Joyner A later motion to drop Farrugia and Mantilla as individual defendants was denied in a 52-page order.15KTTC. Mayo Clinic Doctors Will Remain Defendants in Lawsuit Filed by Colleague
Two decisions narrowed the trial substantially. Judge Wallace dismissed the tortious interference claim against Farrugia before jury selection, and the earlier dismissal of the academic freedom policy as contractual meant Joyner’s team could not argue at trial that Mayo had broken an academic freedom promise. What remained were the narrower anti-retaliation and appeals-policy claims.4KTTC. Doctor’s Attorney May Not Be Done Fighting After Loss in Retaliation Lawsuit Against Mayo Clinic
The February 2026 Trial and Verdict
The jury trial began February 2, 2026, before Judge Wallace in Olmsted County. Joyner was represented by Samantha Harris and Samuel Diehl of Allen Harris Law. Mayo was represented by Ryan Mick of Dorsey & Whitney, whose defense argued that Joyner was disciplined for “unacceptable disrespectful behavior” and that the decisions were made by fellow physicians rather than executives with retaliatory motives. Mick noted, “Dr. Joyner still has his prestigious job at Mayo.”16Post-Bulletin. Jury Trial Begins in Lawsuit Between Doctor and Mayo Clinic
On February 12, 2026, after roughly ten days of testimony and argument, the jury ruled unanimously for Mayo Clinic on all claims, finding no breach of the anti-retaliation policy in either 2020 or 2023 and no violation of the appeals procedure.17KROC News. Joyner Lawsuit Verdict: Mayo Clinic
The Motion for a New Trial
Joyner’s team filed a motion for a new trial on June 3, 2026, raising two main arguments.18Post-Bulletin. Dr. Michael Joyner Files for New Trial in Dispute With Mayo Clinic
The first argument alleges that Farrugia gave false testimony about his knowledge of MITRE Corporation. Farrugia testified he did not know what MITRE was when he received a June 19, 2020, email from Joyner raising concerns about the organization. Joyner’s attorneys argued that Mayo press materials and internal emails from spring and summer 2020 contradicted that testimony and showed MITRE’s role was well known within Mayo leadership.19KAALTV. Dr. Michael Joyner Files for New Trial in Suit Against Mayo Clinic The filing states that Farrugia “testified at trial that he did not know the word ‘hijack’ had a meaning outside of the context of airplane hijackings and professed unfamiliarity with matters that documentary evidence makes clear were well known within Mayo leadership.”20Post-Bulletin. In the Latest Filings for a New Trial, Dr. Michael Joyner Vigorously Denies Harassing Mayo Clinic CEO
The second argument challenges jury instructions that repeatedly told jurors Joyner was “not claiming Dr. Farrugia retaliated against him or caused others to retaliate.” That instruction flowed from the pretrial dismissal of the tortious interference claim against Farrugia. Joyner’s team argued the instruction was “profoundly confusing” because jurors did not know a separate claim against Farrugia had ever existed, and would likely read the instruction as a judicial finding that Farrugia did nothing wrong rather than a procedural limit on the claims before them.21Yahoo News. Dr. Michael Joyner Files for New Trial
Mayo Clinic has opposed the motion, calling it “a troubling pattern of baseless personal attacks” and “specious allegations of perjury.”22Post-Bulletin. Mayo Clinic Calls Dr. Joyner’s Request for a New Trial Harassment The clinic separately petitioned for $256,000 from Joyner to cover expert fees, deposition costs, and trial transcript expenses, which Joyner’s team has objected to.23KTTC. Mayo Clinic Asks Doctor to Pay More Than $250,000 After Winning Lawsuit
Where the Case Stands
A hearing on the new-trial motion was scheduled before Judge Wallace on July 2, 2026.18Post-Bulletin. Dr. Michael Joyner Files for New Trial in Dispute With Mayo Clinic If the motion is denied, Joyner’s team has signaled that an appeal remains possible. Joyner remains employed at Mayo Clinic.