Bolinske v. Stinker Stores, Inc.

1

SANDRA BOLINSKE, Plaintiff, v. STINKER STORES, INC., and Idaho corporation, Defendant.

No. 1:22-cv-00082-REP

United States District Court, D. Idaho

May 23, 2023

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 21) AND PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. 27)

Raymond E. Patricco, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

Before the Court are Defendant Stinker Stores Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 21) and Plaintiff Sandra Bolinske's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 27). All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United State Magistrate Judge. (Dkt. 7). For the reasons stated below Defendant's Motion is granted in part and denied in part and Plaintiff's Motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's employment and the “Transition Plan.”

Defendant is a company, co-owned by Charley and Nancy Jones, that sells fuel and operates convenience stores throughout Idaho Colorado, and Wyoming. Def.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶ 1 (Dkt. 21-2). In 2013, Defendant hired Plaintiff as its HR director. Def.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶ 3 (Dkt. 21-2). In that role, Plaintiff served as a member of Defendant's “leadership team,” a group of executives and department heads including Mr. and Ms. Jones. Pln.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶¶ 1-2 (Dkt. 27-2). Historically Plaintiff reported directly to Mr. Jones. Def.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶6 (Dkt. 21-2).

In April of 2021, Mr. Jones announced his intent to transition into retirement. Id. As part of his retirement plan, Mr. Jones promoted two members of the leadership team, Nate Brazier and Kristal Searle, to lead the company moving forward. Id. Mr. Jones met with Plaintiff personally to discuss his retirement and informed her that she would begin reporting to Ms. Searle. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff voiced concerns about Ms. Searle's experience and leadership skills. Id. Given these concerns, Plaintiff informed Mr. Jones that she intended to immediately resign. Id. Mr. Jones, however, implored Plaintiff to continue working for Defendant. Id. ¶¶ 8-9; Pln.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶ 9 (Dkt. 27-2). Plaintiff agreed, proposing a transition plan wherein she would continue to work through December 31, 2021, and assist in training her replacement. Pln.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶ 9 (Dkt. 27-2)

In late April of 2021, Plaintiff reached out to Ms. Searle and Mr. Brazier to negotiate a transition plan. Pln.'s Stmnt. of Fact ¶ 10 (Dkt. 27-2). Plaintiff emailed a draft of the plan to Ms. Searle and Mr. Brazier on April 30, 2021, stating:

Here is the agreement that you asked me to put together. If you both agree to this, please initial and then I can place in my personnel file. If you have any changes, comments, concerns, give me a call. Looking forward to making this a smooth and successful transition for everyone.

Bolinske Dec., Ex. B (Dkt. 27-4). Ms. Searle suggested some minor edits, updating a section heading and correcting Plaintiff's proposed end date. Id. Plaintiff incorporated those edits and sent a final draft to Ms. Searle and Mr. Brazier on May 4, 2021. Def.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶ 9 (Dkt. 21-2). Ms. Searle and Mr. Brazier then initialed the “Resignation and Transition Plan for Sandy Bolinske” (the “Transition Plan” or “Plan”). Id.

The Plan contains two provisions the interpretation of which the parties hotly contest. First, the Plan states, “My last day of employment with Stinker Stores, Inc. will be December 31, 2021.” Bolinske Dec., Ex. D (Dkt. 27-4). Second, the Plan states, “[i]f we mutually agree that my services are no longer needed prior to December 31, 2021, my compensation and benefits continue to the end of my resignation period.” Id.

Later in May, about a month after the Transition Plan had been signed, Plaintiff met with Mr. Jones and Ms. Searle to discuss her transition. Bolinske Dep. at 51:22 - 53:17 (Dkt. 21-7). At that meeting, the parties discussed that, if Plaintiff were to find another position before December 31, 2021, she would leave Defendant at that time but be available to work on consulting basis. Id. Subsequently, in May, June, and July of 2021, Plaintiff began her search for new employment. Ashby Dec., Ex. B at 4-5 (Dkt. 30-3). Plaintiff expressed an understanding that, if she found a new job, there would be no consequences if she left employment with Defendant before December 31, 2021. Bolinske Dep. at 139:2-11 (Dkt. 21-7).

B. Plaintiff takes leave for back surgery.

Plaintiff scheduled a back surgery for August 9, 2021, to address the lingering symptoms of an accident in 2016. Pln.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶¶ 13-15 (Dkt. 27-2). Anticipating that she would need to take leave to recover from her surgery, Plaintiff asked Suzanne Holland, another HR employee, for Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) paperwork to provide to her doctor. Def.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶ 18 (Dkt. 21-2). Plaintiff had previously taken FMLA leave in both 2016 and 2018 without incident. Id. ¶¶ 4-5. After her surgery, Plaintiff reported two weeks of paid time off (“PTO”) from August 9, 2021, to August 20, 2021, on her timesheets.^[1] Id. ¶ 20. Then, beginning Monday, August 23, 2021, Plaintiff began reporting full days of regular work on her timesheets. Id. Between August 23, 2021, and October 11, 2021, Plaintiff's timesheets do not show any FMLA leave. Id. Additionally, Defendant's internal spreadsheet for tracking employee FMLA leave does not list any hours for Plaintiff, although her name is on the spreadsheet. Id. ¶ 24.

Plaintiff does not dispute the veracity of her timesheets or Defendant's FMLA spreadsheet, but notes that those pieces of evidence do not capture the full story of her leave. For instance, at the time of Plaintiff's surgery, Defendant's unlimited PTO policy for executives was new, so no executive had taken FMLA leave with the policy in place. Pln.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶ 18 (Dkt. 27-2). And, to that end, Plaintiff represents that it was not possible (or at least she did not believe it was possible) to report concurrent FMLA leave and PTO on a timesheet using Defendant's timekeeping software. Id. ¶ 19. Defendant disputes this and has submitted an affidavit from a current HR employee demonstrating that Defendant's timekeeping software can accommodate inputting FMLA and PTO for the same time period. See Capps Dec. (Dkt. 30-4). Plaintiff also states that the Defendant's FMLA spreadsheet only tracked intermittent FMLA hours, not continuous leave, so it is unremarkable that the spreadsheet does not list any hours for Plaintiff; Plaintiff maintains that her leave was of the continuous variety. Pln.'s Stmnt. of Disputed Facts ¶ 19 (Dkt. 27-3).

In any event, on August 26, 2021, Plaintiff's doctor returned her FMLA paperwork to Defendant, recommending up to twelve weeks of leave for Plaintiff's recovery. Def.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶ 23 (Dkt. 21-2). Plaintiff asked Ms. Holland to approve Plaintiff's FMLA leave request. Id. Ms. Holland reviewed Plaintiff's timesheets and asked how she should word the FMLA approval letter given that Plaintiff had “been working.” Id. Plaintiff informed Ms. Holland that she would “work out” her timesheet and that she had reported PTO for her first week following surgery because she had been working “off and on.” Id. Eventually, Ms. Holland issued a letter approving Plaintiff for “up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave” effective August 9, 2021. Pln.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶ 17 (Dkt. 27-1); Bolinske Dec., Ex. I ((Dkt. 27-4). If Plaintiff took the full twelve weeks of leave, her anticipated return date would have been November 1, 2021. Bolinske Dec., Ex. I ((Dkt. 27-4).

On August 27, 2021, Plaintiff emailed Ms. Searle and described Plaintiff's post-surgery progress, including the need for her to complete physical therapy (“PT”) at home in the weeks to come, and that she was “gradually increasing the number of hours I am working per day” up to 6.5 hours. Bolinske Dec., Ex. J (Dkt. 27-4). At that time, even though she was not yet working full days, Plaintiff's timesheets reflected that she was, and she asked Ms. Searle for permission to “leave her hours as is” given that leadership team PTO could not be taken by the hour. Id. Ms. Searle, citing the inability to “split Leadership Team PTO,” approved Plaintiff's approach to reporting her hours. Id. Then, in another email to Ms. Searle on September 13, 2021, Plaintiff confirmed that she was attending PT three times a week and was “back to working full days but want[ed] to continue working from home [to] ice and do my PT[.]” Bolinske Dep., Ex. 20 (Dkt. 21-9). The record contains no further correspondence between the parties regarding Plaintiff's work schedule or post-surgery recovery.

C. Plaintiff's termination

On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff met with Mr. Brazier at a coffee shop and told him that members of the leadership team were taking bets on how long the “marriage” between Mr. Brazier and Ms. Searle would last. Def.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶ 32 (Dkt. 21-2). Plaintiff refused to tell Mr. Brazier which members of the leadership team were making these “bets,” although he later found out that it was Mike Russell, another member of Defendant's leadership team. Id. ¶32-33. She also raised concerns with Ms. Jones and her past treatment of members of the leadership team. Pln.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶ 23 (Dkt. 27-2).

Shortly thereafter, on September 22, 2021, Plaintiff, Ms. Searle, and another member of Defendant's leadership team communicated via email about reclassifying an IT employee from non-exempt to exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Def.'s Stmnt. of Facts ¶ 36 (Dkt. 21-2). Plaintiff responded to this request on September 27, 2021, expressing “hesitation that this position is an exempt level job.” Id. The following day after more discussions amongst the leadership team, Plaintiff sent an email stating “[i]f you...