Cortez v. Raytheon Co.

663 F.Supp.2d 514

Ann CORTEZ, Plaintiff, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-0801-K.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

October 1, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Karen G. Shropshire, Greer & Shropshire LLP, Dallas, TX, Lawrence B. Greer, Greer & Shropshire LLP, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.

Ron W. Chapman, Jr., Kristin Michelle Snyder, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, Dallas, TX, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ED KINKEADE, District Judge.

Before the court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed July 15, 2009, and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply Opposing Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed September 3, 2009. The court has carefully considered the motions, briefs, evidence submitted by the parties, and the applicable law. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply is denied as moot.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The factual background provided in the summary judgment record is summarized as follows. These facts are largely undisputed; however, where they are in dispute, they are presented in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Ann Cortez ("Cortez") was initially employed by Defendant Raytheon Company ("Raytheon") in 1998. Except for a one-year period where she left to work for another company, Cortez continued working for Raytheon until November 2006. Beginning in May 2005, Cortez held the position of Senior Information Systems Technologist II, which has a salary grade of E04.

Raytheon provides its employees with a summary plan description ("SPD") that describes benefits available to them. In a section titled "Medical," which goes on for several pages, the SPD describes the various medical insurance plans available to Raytheon's employees, provides a summary of each plan's coverage, and explains status changes and rules for coordination of benefits. Still under "Medical," in a sub-section entitled "As Your Needs Change," the SPD states, in pertinent part:

[i]f you are on an authorized medical leave of absence, medical coverage for you and your dependents will continue for up to 24 months. During the first 12 months of your leave, your coverage will be continued on a company-paid basis. If your leave continues beyond this 12-month period, you may continue your coverage, provided you pay the employee contribution in effect at the time directly to Raytheon. You are billed for your share of the cost.

After you have been on a medical leave of absence for 24 months, your employment will be administratively terminated, and you may extend your coverage under COBRA regulations . . .

Chapman testified that any Raytheon employee who was out for any kind of leave for more than 24 months would be terminated.

In November 2005, Cortez began an approved medical leave of absence due to complications from pregnancy. She gave birth in December 2005. Cortez's expected return to work date was February 13, 2006. During her leave, Cortez suffered from post-partum depression and additional physical ailments. Cortez did not return from leave in mid-February 2006 as planned, instead requesting an extension of her leave of absence. Her request was granted, as were six additional requests by Cortez to extend her leave, totaling approximately nine additional months of medical leave. She was diagnosed with depression in mid-2006, and maintains that she was medically unable to work during all of that year.

MetLife is Raytheon's disability benefits carrier, and acts as the claims administrator for Raytheon's Disability Benefits Plan ("Plan"). Decisions to grant or deny benefits under the Plan are made at the discretion of MetLife. MetLife provided Cortez with short and long-term disability ("LTD") benefits during her medical leave of absence. Her LTD benefits originally ended on or about August 27, 2006; however, Plaintiff sought an extension of those benefits that was granted by MetLife, extending her LTD benefits through September 10, 2006. Although Cortez provided additional medical documentation to MetLife seeking to extend her benefits even further, MetLife determined that the new information did not change its evaluation of her claim, and that there was nothing indicating that Cortez had a medical condition that prevented her from working beyond September 10, 2006. MetLife conveyed its decision to Hulda Wood ("Wood"), a Senior Employee Benefits Administrator, on November 1, 2006.

After MetLife informed Raytheon that no extension of Cortez's LTD benefits beyond September 10, 2006 was warranted. Wood reviewed MetLife's documentation and the medical information provided in MetLife's claim review forms pertaining to Cortez. Wood did not see anything in the claim review form that would have supported Cortez's continued absence from work. In November 2006, Raytheon's Human Resources Manager Stacey Chapman ("Chapman") had a telephone conversation with Cortez, who told him her doctor had not authorized her to return to work. She also stated that she would provide Raytheon with whatever medical documentation it required to justify extending her leave, or to allow her to work from home. Alternatively, she requested an educational leave of absence to pursue her Masters' degree. Raytheon denied her request for educational leave.

On November 16, 2006, Chapman sent Cortez a letter stating that because MetLife had stopped paying her claim as of September 10, 2006 due to a lack of supporting medical documentation, and she had exhausted her FMLA leave as of February 6, 2006, she must return to her job by November 27, 2006. Chapman's letter further states that if she did not return to work as requested, Raytheon would consider her to have abandoned her job and her employment would be terminated.

Cortez responded to Chapman's letter on November 21, 2006, stating in an email that her doctor would not release her to return to work on November 27, but that he wanted to monitor her condition over the next four to eight weeks and had stated that it was "extremely probable" that she would be able to return to work in January 2007. Chapman replied to Cortez's November 21 email that same day, advising Cortez that she needed to either come back on November 27, or put pressure on her physician to submit needed paperwork to MetLife in order to extend her medical leave of absence. Both Cortez and her treating psychiatrist state that she was unable to work at least through, the end of 2006. However, Cortez provided no additional documentation to MetLife or Raytheon regarding her need for additional medical leave. When Cortez did not return to work on November 27, Chapman terminated her employment. Chapman sent Cortez a letter dated November 28, 2006 telling her that she had been discharged.

Cortez was eligible for re-hire, and after her termination she sought employment with Raytheon. Between February 2007 and August 2008, she applied for 12 different positions through Raytheon's online RAYCATS system. Each Raytheon business unit has its own recruiting employees who handle job requisitions for that particular business. Three of the requisitions Cortez applied for were canceled, and no one was hired to fill those particular positions. Cortez was not hired for any of the other positions she applied for. Chapman was aware that she had applied for rehire, but does not know why she was not rehired. Cortez does not know who made the final hiring decisions related to these positions, or whether any of the relevant decision-makers had any knowledge of her involvement in any protected activity.

After she was terminated and not rehired, Cortez filed suit against Raytheon, claiming that it had discriminated against her based upon gender and disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act ("TCHRA") Tex. Lab.Code § 21.001 et seq. She also brings claims for retaliation and under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). Raytheon now moves for summary judgment on all of Cortez's claims.

II. Summary Judgment Standards

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, affidavits and other summary judgment evidence show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2551, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The moving party bears the burden of identifying those portions of the record it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-25, 106 S.Ct. at 2551-54. Once a movant makes a properly supported motion, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to show that summary judgment should not be granted; the nonmovant may not rest upon allegations in the pleadings, but must support the response to the motion with summary judgment evidence showing the existence of a genuine fact issue for trial. Id. at 321-25, 106 S.Ct. at 2551-54; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255-57, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2513-14, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). All evidence and reasonable inferences must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962).

III. Raytheon's Motion for Summary Judgment

Raytheon contends that Cortez cannot present a genuine issue of material fact regarding any of her claims against it. Therefore, Raytheon believes that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Each of Cortez's claims will be analyzed below.

A. Gender Discrimination

As Raytheon points out, Cortez has not briefed any arguments or presented any evidence pertaining to her gender discrimination claim. If a party fails to pursue a claim or defense beyond the initial...