Chamberlain v. Wyo. Cnty.

JULLEE CHAMBERLAIN, Plaintiff v. WYOMING COUNTY, Defendant

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-1408

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

November 13, 2018

(JUDGE MANNION)

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Jullee Chamberlain filed this action asserting claims against defendant Wyoming County under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Family Medical Leave Act as well as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Plaintiff essentially alleges that Wyoming County discriminated and retaliated against her and eventually fired her because of her disabilities, her FMLA protected leave, and her age. The County contends that plaintiff was terminated due to her hostile behavior in the work place and her continuous harassment of her co-workers. Defendant County filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 with respect to all nine claims raised by plaintiff. (Doc. 28). For the following reasons, the County's motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. MATERIAL FACTS¹

Plaintiff was employed with the County for over 14 years, including positions as Administrative Assistant and Bookeeper for the Wyoming County Conservation District.

During the time she worked for the County, plaintiff was a member of the AFSCME Union and she was the Union Shop Steward for 8 years until her termination. Plaintiff was trained in grievance procedures in her position as Union Shop Steward.

JUNE 20, 2014 COMPLAINT LETTER

On June 20, 2014, the employees in the County Conservation District Office requested a meeting with the three County Commissioners and the County's Chief Clerk, William Gaylord, regarding a hostile environment in their office. The Commissioners and Gaylord then met with the employees in the Conservation District Office and, they were presented with materials. Plaintiff was not present during the June 20 meeting since she had left work early that day. The Commissioners then asked the employees to prepare a formal written complaint. (Doc. 36-2 at 9-10). Later that day the Commissioners received the formal complaint.

Specifically, the Commissioners received a letter dated June 20, 2014, signed by four of plaintiff's co-workers and the District Manager in the Conservation District Office, Doug Deutsch. (Doc. 30-1 at 107). In the letter, the employees complained to the County Commissioners about plaintiff's abusive behavior in the office and stated that over a course of many years they felt "intimidated and harassed by Jullee's hostile behavior." They stated that they could no longer tolerate the conditions and, that the long standing abuse created by the plaintiff caused them embarrassment, emotional distress and discontent. While plaintiff claims that either a County Commissioner, Thomas Henry, or Gaylord, requested plaintiff's co-workers to prepare the complaint letter, Gaylord and Henry testified that they did not do so. Plaintiff alleges that Henry's deposition testimony and his testimony in her union arbitration proceeding, (Doc. 36-2 at 9-10), was inapposite. However, as stated, Henry testified at plaintiff's union arbitration proceeding that after hearing the complaints from plaintiff's co-workers, the Commissioner's requested the co-workers to prepare a formal written complaint.

The Commissioners again met on June 23, 2014. Gaylord and plaintiff were also present for this meeting. Tammy Goodwin, another County employee, was also at the meeting as plaintiff's union representative. During the meeting, the Commissioners discussed the content of the complaint letter with plaintiff and plaintiff was allowed to respond to the allegations in it. After the meeting, Henry suggested that the plaintiff go home for the day since she was upset, but this did not constitute a suspension and she was paid for this day. Henry testified that plaintiff was on paid administrative leave. Plaintiff returned to work on June 24, 2014.

Plaintiff then filed a grievance regarding the June 20, 2014 letter from her co-workers. Plaintiff claimed that she was the real victim in the office and that she was subjected to harassment. She also claimed that Deutsch witnessed the harassment and participated in it. However, plaintiff did not file any grievance against Deutsch or her co-workers regarding their alleged harassment of her. Plaintiff stated that she was not allowed to file a grievance against co-workers who were union members. Plaintiff did informally complain about Deutsch to Commissioner Judy Kraft Mead sometime around 2012-2013. Other than these two discussions with Mead, plaintiff never spoke to any of the other Commissioners about the alleged harassment in her office.

While Deutsch did not have authority to fire plaintiff, he did have authority to discipline her. However, before the complaint letter, Deutsch had not disciplined plaintiff about her behavior in the office. In fact, plaintiff stated that she was not disciplined in all of her years working for the County. Nor did plaintiff ever receive any verbal or written warning about her conduct in the office. Deutsch indicated that he did, however, keep confidential memos containing disciplinary notes regarding plaintiff's poor behavior over the last six years. He saved the memos on his computer but he did not share the memos with plaintiff or anyone else in the County. He kept the files for his personal reference and kept similar files for each employee he supervised.

On July 2, 2014, plaintiff prepared a written response to the complaint letter advising the Commissioners that she got along with her co-workers and that their allegations were "unfounded." Plaintiff also suggested one reason her co-workers signed the letter was to allow Katie McClain, a younger person, take her job after she was fired. Although plaintiff did not mention her alleged harassment in the office, she did mention other issues she was having and her suspicious that Deutsch "was trying to get all of the staff members to 'unite' and try to remove [her] from [her] position at the District." The Commissioners considered plaintiff's response, conducted meetings, and investigated plaintiff's contentions. As stated, the Commissioners met with both the plaintiff and her co-workers. The Commissioners then concluded that the plaintiff was responsible for creating hostile work conditions in her office.

On Thursday July 3, 2014, plaintiff was called into another meeting with the County Commissioners and Gaylord. At the conclusion of the meeting, Henry suggested that the plaintiff take off the rest of the day, but plaintiff was not suspended. However, Gaylord told plaintiff that he did not want to pay anybody who was not working. Plaintiff replied that she did not have any problems going back to work, so she returned to the office. The Commissioners then scheduled another meeting for July 8, 2014 with the plaintiff and all of the employees in her office.

On Monday July 7, 2014, Henry told the plaintiff to take off that day.

On July 8, 2014, the Commissioners met with all of the employees in Conservation District Office. After all of the employees left the meeting, the Commissioners met several times by themselves and decided that plaintiff's co-workers were telling the truth about plaintiff's hostile conduct in the office. The Commissioners then voted unanimously to fire the plaintiff. Following the Commissioner's meeting, the plaintiff was advised that her employment with the County was terminated. In their termination letter dated July 8, 2014, the Commissioners stated that plaintiff's "[t]ermination is based on complaints by Conservation District Employees and Department manager and the creation of a hostile work environment." (Doc. 36-16).

FMLA CLAIMS

Plaintiff was hospitalized from May 27 through May 30, 2014 and the County was aware of it. The parties do not dispute that this hospitalization was FMLA protected. The County listed plaintiff's leave for these days as "sick leave" in its Stop Loss Claim Form. However, there is no indication in the record that plaintiff submitted a written request for FMLA leave regarding her May 27 through May 30, 2014 hospitalization.

Plaintiff was again hospitalized on June 26 and 27, 2014. Plaintiff states that the County and Deutsch were aware of this hospitalization and that it was FMLA protected. Plaintiff missed two days of work during her June 2014 hospitalization but it was not listed as sick leave. Plaintiff did not apply for FMLA leave regarding her June 26 and 27 2014 hospitalization.

Plaintiff had previously requested FMLA during her employment with the County starting in September of 2002, and each time she submitted a written request for such leave. (Doc. 30-1 at 191-194). In fact, prior to her leave for the end of June 2014, plaintiff always requested FMLA leave with the County in writing indicating that it was an FMLA request. At all times relevant to this case, Wyoming County Commissioners would personally approve or deny all requested FMLA leave on behalf of the County. Plaintiff testified that she was not denied any FMLA leave by the County which she requested in writing. However, plaintiff states that the County did not permit employees to apply for FMLA leave, and only provided its employees with FMLA paperwork, after the employees used all of their vacation, personal and sick time. She also points out that the County did not provide FMLA information unless the employee specifically stated that they needed "FMLA leave."

ADA ACCOMMODATION

Plaintiff testified that she requested an accommodation from Deutsch, supported by a doctor's note, stating that she could not lift over 15 pounds. She supplied a copy of the note to Deutsch, her supervisor, and he told plaintiff not to lift anything over 15 pounds. However, plaintiff stated that when situations at work arose which required lifting of things over 15 pounds, Deutsch would tell plaintiff to lift the objects. Plaintiff did not file a grievance...