QUEEN M. ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
VERIZON WIRELESS, et al., Respondent.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-00482 (JCH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JUNE 23, 2015
RULING RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docs. No. 207, 212)
Plaintiffs Queen Allen ("Allen") and Waltrina Whitman ("Whitman") bring this action against Allen's former employer, defendant Verizon Wireless ("Verizon"), and Verizon's employee benefits plan administrator, MetLife Insurance Co. ("MetLife"). Allen claims that Verizon violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and that MetLife wrongfully denied her benefits in violation of ERISA. Sixth Amended Complaint ("Sixth Amd. Compl.") (Doc. No. 133). Allen and Whitman both also bring state law claims against both defendants. Id. Both Verizon and MetLife have moved for summary judgment as to all claims against them. Motion for Summary Judgment by Verizon Wireless (Doc. No. 207) ("Verizon's Mot."); Motion for Summary Judgment by MetLife (Doc. No. 212) ("MetLife's Mot.").
For the reasons that follow, Verizon's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. MetLife's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Page 2
I. FACTS 1
Allen was employed by Verizon in its Wallingford call center from 2004 through January 14, 2011. Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement (Doc.No. 229-1) ("Pl.'s Loc. R. 56(a)(2) Stmt. Re: Verizon") ¶ 7. From 2005 until her termination on January 14, 2011, Allen was a Business Support Coordinator, with responsibilities that included fielding incoming calls, assisting customers, meeting quotas for average calls per day, and ensuring customer needs were met. Id. ¶¶ 8-10.
MetLife administers Verizon's employee FMLA and Short-Term Disability ("STD") benefits, as set forth in an Administrative Services Agreement ("ASA"). Id. ¶¶ 1-2. Pursuant to this Agreement, MetLife handles all of the documentation collection, FMLA and ERISA notices, and decision-making with respect to FMLA or STD requests made by Verizon employees. Id. ¶ 3. During the course of her employment with Verizon, Allen applied for leave under the FMLA and for STD benefits on multiple occasions.
One such request was made in September 2009, when Allen took time off from work due to her anxiety and depression, and she requested both FMLA and STD. MetLife initially denied both requests. Id. ¶ 21. On appeal, MetLife granted Allen's STD benefits. In February 2010, Allen requested and was granted FMLA leave in order to care for her mother, plaintiff Whitman. Id. ¶¶ 31-32. In doing so, Allen submitted a FMLA Healthcare Provider Certification ("HCPC") completed by Whitman's APRN, Linda Spiegel. Id. ¶ 31. In February/March 2010, Allen applied for FMLA and STD related to her own medical conditions. Id. ¶ 33. MetLife faxed a form to Whitman's APRN, Nurse Spiegel to complete in connection with Allen's STD claim,
Page 3
although Nurse Spiegel did not treat Allen. Plaintiffs' Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement (Doc.No. 229-4) ("Pl.'s Loc. R. 56(a)(2) Stmt. Re: MetLife") ¶ 32. Both Allen's FMLA and STD claims were denied. Id. 36. Allen appealed the STD denial, and MetLife reversed its denial on appeal. Id. 38.
On November 15, 2010, Allen submitted a FMLA claim to MetLife in connection with her own medical conditions. Pl.'s Loc. R. 56(a)(2) Stmt. Re: Verizon ¶39. On November 16, 2010, MetLife sent Allen a letter asking her to complete and return an enclosed HCPC form, and notifying her that failure to return the form by the deadline could result in FMLA denial. On the same day, MetLife also sent another communication notifying Allen of her FMLA rights and obligations and notifying her that she had 15 calendar days to return the HCPC form or face denial of her request, and that denial could impact her employment status. Id. ¶ 42. On November 23, 2010, Allen applied for STD benefits, and MetLife sent her an email that stated "if you have not already done so, please complete the medical authorization form and fax/mail back to MetLife and give a copy to your physician." Id. ¶ 44, Verizon's Loc. R. 56(a)(1) Stmt. Exh.A-18 (Doc. No. 209-1 at 77). MetLife also informed Allen that, if her FMLA request was denied, she must return to work immediately or face potential termination. Id. ¶ 46.
On December 6, 2010, MetLife notified Allen that her FMLA request had been denied for failure to submit the requested medical documentation, and instructed her to contact Verizon to determine her job status or other leave options. Id. ¶¶ 48-49. On December 13, MetLife denied Allen's STD claim. Id. ¶ 50. The stated reason for
Page 4
denial was failure to receive the requested medical information regarding Allen's claim. Verizon's Loc. R. 56(a)(1) Stmt. Exh.A-22 (Doc. No. 209-1 at 95).
On December 20, 2010, after receiving notification that Allen's FMLA request had been denied, Verizon Unplanned Leave Team member Diane Anderson ("Anderson") sent Allen a letter informing her that, if she needed additional time out of work, it was extremely important to contact her. She also sent Allen "Workplace Arrangement Request and Medical Release" forms and informed Allen that they needed to be returned by December 27, 2010. She further notified Allen that failure to return to work and/or provide medical information by December 27, 2010, would result in an Unauthorized Leave of Absence designation, which could lead to a termination for job abandonment. Id. ¶ 54, 56. Anderson also left Allen a voicemail regarding the contents of the letter. Id. ¶ 57.
On January 3, 2011, Anderson sent a second letter to Allen informing her that Verizon had not received the requested information, and that because Allen had not returned to work, Verizon would be placing her on an Unauthorized Leave of Absence and thus subjecting her to termination for job abandonment. Id. ¶ 59. The letter stated, "if you do not return to work by Monday, January 10, 2011, with documentation in hand, the company will conclude that you have elected to abandon your position." Id. ¶ 61, Verizon's Loc. R. 56(a)(1) Stmt. Exh. A-26 (Doc. No. 209-2 at 93). Anderson also called Allen and left another voicemail. Pl.'s Loc. R. 56(a)(2) Stmt. Re: Verizon ¶
Page 5
62. On January 6, 2011, Anderson again called Allen, and explained the process as laid out in the letters. Id. ¶ 64.2
During the period in which Allen submitted her claims, she was also in communication with her supervisor, Deb Bushman, regarding her absences. Bushman informed her several times that she needed to be in touch with MetLife, including on December 30, 2010, when she stated "please make sure you have contacted MetLife and are up to date with them as we do not have any approval at this time." Id. ¶ 66, Loc. R. 56(a)(1) Stmt. Exh.A-24 (Doc. No. 209-2) at 71. On January 2, 2011, Bushman spoke to Allen and informed her that she needed to respond to Anderson's letters, and Allen conceded she had not contacted MetLife. Id. ¶ 67. Bushman left Allen another voicemail on January 4, 2011. Id. ¶ 68. On January 4, Allen filed an appeal of her STD denial. Id. ¶ 76. MetLife acknowledged receipt of the appeal on January 14, 2011. Id. ¶ 78. On the same day, Verizon terminated Allen for job abandonment.
Allen's appeal letter, dated January 5, 2011, stated that, "I am currently under the care of medical professionals for my symptoms." Pl.'s Loc. R. 56(a)(2) Stmt. Re: MetLife ¶ 54. Upon receipt, her claim file was reviewed by Appeal Specialist Karen A. Rotundo. Id. ¶ 57. After unsuccessfully trying to contact Allen on the phone, id. ¶ 60,3 Rotundo sent Allen a letter on January 14, 2011, "recommending that you, and your
Page 6
treating provider's [sic], submit clinical information in the form of detailed notes, treatment information, etc. . . . Please contact your provider and provide any additional medical information within ten days of your receipt of this letter." Id. ¶ 61, Declaration of Stephanie Williams, Exh. A (Doc. No. 212) ("Admin. Rec.") at 474. Rotundo also sent a request for updated medical records to Dr. Karl. Pl.'s Loc. R. 56(a)(2) Stmt. Re: MetLife ¶ 63. On February 3, 2011, Dr. Karl responded that he was a periodontist and had only done one examination on Allen, and thus believed he had received the request in error. Id. ¶ 65. On January 26 and February 3, 2011, Rotundo attempted unsuccessfully to contact Allen via telephone. Id. ¶ 66. On February 8, 2011, Rotundo stated that, because MetLife still hadn't received any medical evidence to support Allen's STD claim, it would extend her time to submit such evidence. Id. ¶ 67. In a letter dated February 9, 2011, Rotundo informed Allen that MetLife would require an additional 45 days to render its appeal decision. Id. ¶ 68. On February 22, 2011, MetLife Appeal Specialist Les R. Hausfield contacted Allen and left a voicemail informing her that MetLife still had no medical documentation on file, and recommending that she have healthcare providers provide MetLife with the requested information. Id. ¶ 71. On February 28, 2011, Allen contacted MetLife and stated that she was in the process of obtaining her medical information. Id. ¶ 71.
On the same day, MetLife received Allen's medical records from periodontist Dr.
Page 7
Karl's...
