Beckford v. Elevance Health, Inc.

1

BRIDGET BECKFORD Plaintiff, v. ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:23cv828

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

August 28, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

M Hannah Lauck, Virginia United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Elevance Health Inc.'s (f/k/a Anthem, Inc.) (“Elevance”) Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”). (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff Bridget Beckford responded in opposition and Elevance replied. (ECF Nos. 20, 21.)^[1]

The matter is ripe for disposition. The Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not aid in the decisional process. For the reasons articulated below the Court will grant the Motion. (ECF No. 14.)

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A. Factual Background^[2]

1. Ms. Beckford Joins Elevance for Job No. 1

On April 16,2021, Ms. Beckford, an African American woman, first began working for Elevance as an underwriter on the Virginia Key Accounts team (“Job No. 1”). (ECF No. 1-1, at 66 ¶¶ 16-17; ECF No. 15-1, at 7.) While working for Elevance in this role, Ms. Beckford “was subject to discrimination by Senior Group Underwriter Pam Ayers”, a Caucasian woman. (ECF No. 1-1, at 66 ¶ 19.)

As a member of the Virginia Key Accounts team, Ms. Beckford worked with Ms. Ayers, Director Maria Gregory, and Business Change Manager Kim T. Williams. (ECF No. 1-1, at 66 ¶ 20.) While the team was “structured so that [Ms.] Beckford would share tasks with [Ms.] Ayers,” Ms. Ayers also had a “degree of managerial control over [Ms.] Beckford as a Senior Group Underwriter[]” and “was also assigned to instruct and train [Ms.] Beckford.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 66 ¶¶ 20-21.)

Ms. Beckford suspected that Ms. Ayers possessed a “racially-motivated animus” which involved Ms. Ayers “regularly [making] disparaging comments directed at racial minorities.” (ECF No. 1 -1, at 66 ¶¶ 22-23.) When Ms. Williams, an African American woman, was promoted to Business Change Manager, Ms. Beckford witnessed Ms. Ayers “become incensed that [Ms.] Williams and not [Ms.] Ayers has been promoted.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 67 ¶ 27.) Ms. Ayers “berated [Ms.] Beckford whenever [she] sought advice or assistance from [Ms.] Williams,” and “flung a computer mouse at a file cabinet near [Ms.] Beckford, seized [Ms.] Beckford's notebook without warning in a meeting, and tasked [Ms.] Beckford with completing an increasingly burdensome workload[].” (ECF No. 1-1, at 67 ¶¶ 28-29.)

In December 2019, Ms. Ayers drew a face with a frown in black marker on the dry erase board in Ms. Beckford's cubicle. (ECF No. 1-1, at 67 ¶ 30.) Senior Group Underwriter Ayers then used a brown marker to draw a stick figure and told Ms. Beckford that the drawing resembled “a _n****r.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 67 ¶ 30 (alterations in original).) Ms. Beckford reported the incident to Business Change Manager Williams and requested her team “hold a meeting to discuss training options for diversity and cultural sensitivity.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 67 ¶¶ 31-32.) “[Ms.] Williams agreed to propose a training to the Human Resources department, but did not address [Ms.] Beckford's complaint concerning [Ms.] Ayers's behavior.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 68 ¶ 33.)

In February 2020, Ms. Ayers told Ms. Beckford “that she had a confederate flag at home,” and that shooting incidents at schools and churches were because “people don't spank their children and God was removed from schools.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 68 ¶¶ 34-35.) Ms. Beckford approached Ms. Ayers concerning these comments, explaining “that she felt unsupported by [Ms.] Ayers as a supervisor[.]” (ECF No. 1-1, at 68 ¶ 37.) Senior Group Underwriter Ayers “became increasingly agitated at this criticism and ended the meeting[.]” (ECF No. 1-1, at 68 ¶ 38.) Ms. Beckford went on to report the dry-erase board and confederate flag incidents to Ms. Williams and Human Resources Representative Bennie Jackson. (ECF No. 1-1, at 68 ¶ 39.) Ms. Jackson initially informed Ms. Beckford that Elevance would conduct an internal investigation, but ultimately Elevance declined to take any action against Ms. Ayers. (ECF No. 1-1, at 68 ¶ 40.) Ms. Beckford requested a transfer to another position, but was told she would need to apply via Elevance's internal job board. (ECF No. 1-1, at 69 ¶¶ 41-42.)

In March 2020, Ms. Beckford submitted a complaint to Team Director Ms. Gregory concerning Ms. Ayers' behavior outlining three instances where Ms. Ayers “engaged in discriminatory or retaliatory behavior directed at her.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 69 ¶¶ 43-44.) When Ms. Gregory did not act on this information, Ms. Beckford contacted the Vice President of Human Resources, Carolyn Bradfield, and Manager of Associate Relations, Kelsey Alverson, who both directed Ms. Beckford to report to H.R. Representative Jackson once more. (ECF No. 1-1, at 69 ¶¶ 45-46.) After these complaints, Ms. Ayers's retaliatory behavior increased. (ECF No. 1-1, at 69 ¶ 48.) Ms. Beckford agreed to attend a mediation with Ms. Ayers, Ms. Jackson, and Team Director Gregory to “develop a resolution for [Ms.] Ayers's discriminatory actions.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 69 ¶ 49.) Despite reaching an agreement at the mediation, Ms. Ayers “did not attempt to comply with the agreed-upon course of action.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 69 ¶ 51.) By November 2020, Ms. Beckford was diagnosed “as likely under extreme stress” and prescribed medication to regulate her “anxiety and panic attacks.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 70 ¶¶ 52-53.)

On February 4, 2021, Elevance informed Ms. Beckford that she would be terminated from her role in Job No. 1 effective March 12, 2021, as part of a reduction in force. (ECF No. 1-1, at 70 ¶ 54; ECF No. 15-1, at 9.)^[3] Ms. Beckford was “not aware of any other [Elevance] employees terminated due to this supposed reorganization.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 70 ¶ 56.) Following her termination from employment, on March 25, 2021, Ms. Beckford filed Charge No. 1 with the EEOC. (ECF No. 1-1, at 64 ¶ 15, 70 ¶ 57; see generally ECF No. 15-1.) In Charge No. 1, Ms. Beckford asserted that her March 12,2021 termination constituted retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”). (ECF No. 15-1, at 5,10.) That same day, Ms. Beckford also filed a complaint with the Virginia Office of the Attorney General, Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”). (ECF No. 1-1, at 64 ¶ 15.)

2. Ms. Beckford Rejoins Elevance for Job No. 2

In May 2021, approximately two months after her termination from employment, Ms. Beckford interviewed with Elevance for an underwriter position reporting to a different supervisor (“Job No. 2.”). (ECF No. 1-1, at 70 ¶¶ 58, 61; ECF No. 15-2, at 4.) In June 2021, Ms. Beckford received an offer for this position. (ECF No. 1-1, at 70 ¶ 58.) Ms. Beckford explains that, upon being rehired for Job No. 2, she had been “reinstated to the same position [she] had before, but with a different position title” of “Under Analyst”. (ECF No. 15-2, at 6; see also ECF No. 1-1, at 70 ¶¶ 58-59, 61-62.)

On August 1,2021, Ms. Beckford emailed her new manager, Craig Gentry, requesting “a mentor to assist her with the return to work due to a medical diagnosis.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 71 ¶ 63.) She explained that a mentor would help her “learn as [she] became used to the condition and its corresponding symptoms.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 71 ¶ 63.) Mr. Gentry did not respond to this request. (ECF No. 1-1, at 71 ¶ 64.)

On or about September 22, 2021, Ms. Beckford inquired about time-off under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) after her husband required emergency surgery. (ECF No. 1-1, at 71 ¶ 65; ECF No. 15-2, at 4.) Ms. Beckford requested FMLA leave for a period beginning September 24, 2021, and ending October 8, 2021. (ECF No. 15-2, at 11.) In a letter dated September 24,2021, Elevance denied this request, explaining that Ms. Beckford had failed to work the requisite 1,250 hours in the past twelve months, as required for FMLA leave entitlements. (ECF No. 15-2, at 11.) In a subsequent phone call, Elevance informed Ms. Beckford that she would not have the requisite number of hours needed for FMLA leave until September 29, 2021. (ECF No. 1-1, at 71 ¶ 66.) Ms. Beckford applied for FMLA leave on September 29, 2021, and was informed that she was eligible if she could give supporting documentation. (ECF No. 1-1, at 71 ¶ 67.) On October 13,2021, the Leave of Absence department emailed Ms. Beckford “stating that her leave was denied because she was not eligible.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 71 ¶ 68.) In all, Elevance sent Ms. Beckford three emails reflecting inconsistent numbers regarding her total working hours. (ECF No. 1-1, at 71 ¶ 68.)

Although Elevance denied Ms. Beckford's requests for FMLA leave, it granted her a leave of absence as an accommodation for her disability for the period beginning October 6, 2021, and ending January 17,2022. (ECF No. 15-2, at 18.) During this period, on November 21,2021, Ms. Beckford spoke with a representative of Elevance's Benefits Department regarding Short Term Disability pay. (ECF No. 1-1, at 72 ¶ 73.) The Benefits Department stated that she could only receive Short Term Disability pay after three months of employment. (ECF No. 1-1, at 72 ¶ 74.) Ms. Beckford “was not allowed to return to work” that fall. (ECF No. 1-1, at 72 ¶ 81.) “[O]n December 9,2021, [she] reluctantly submitted her resignation, informing Anthem that she was discriminated and retaliated against throughout her employment.” (ECF No. 1-1, at 72 ¶ 81.)

On December 20, 2021, Ms. Beckford filed Charge No. 2 with the EEOC, broadly stating that Elevance failed to accommodate an unspecified disability, and that the company discriminated against her in violation of Title VII and the Virginia Human Rights Act (“VHRA”). (See...