O'donnell v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.

790 F.Supp.2d 289

17 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1803

24 A.D. Cases 1519

Monica O'DONNELL, Plaintiff,

v.PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:09–CV–1173.

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

May 16, 2011.

Brian K. Wiley, Law Offices of Brian K. Wiley, P.C., North Wales, PA, for Plaintiff.Gwendolyn T. Mosley, Office of Attorney General, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

MARTIN C. CARLSON, United States Magistrate Judge.I. INTRODUCTION

In this action, Monica O'Donnell, a former employee of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, has sued the Department and four of its current and former officials, alleging that the Defendants violated her rights under both federal and state law by failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodations to address her medical needs stemming from diabetes, and by retaliating against her in a variety of ways after she sought such accommodations. Specifically, Ms. O'Donnell has brought claims for alleged violations of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. ; the self-care provision of the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D); § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. § § 951 et seq. ; and for First Amendment retaliation, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In addition to the Department of Corrections, Ms. O'Donnell has sued Jeffrey Beard, in his official capacity as the former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections; Robert Collins, in his individual and official capacity as the current Superintendent of the State Correctional Institution at Frackville (SCI–Frackville), where Ms. O'Donnell was employed between June 2000 and September 2010 as a licensed and certified teacher preparing inmates at the prison to take the General Education Development (“GED”) examination; Robert Shannon, in his individual and official capacity as the former Superintendent of SCI–Frackville; Jeffrey Chiampi in his individual and official capacity as the former Principal at SCI–Frackville; and Cephus Moore in his individual and official capacity as the Human Resources Representative of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.¹

Following a tortuous and fitful litigation history,² Defendants have filed two motions for summary judgment, which are currently before the Court and which are ripe for disposition. (Docs. 58, 65.) For the reasons that follow, the motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

II. BACKGROUND ³

Between June 2000 and September 3, 2010, Monica O'Donnell was employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at SCI–Frackville, as a licensed and certified teacher preparing inmates at the prison for taking the GED.⁴ Ms. O'Donnell also suffers from diabetes, a condition that requires that she be able to frequently monitor her glucose levels throughout the day.

In order to address her medical needs relating to her diabetes, in the fall of 2007, Plaintiff formally requested permission to bring certain medical supplies into SCI–Frackville, and to keep them on her person at all times throughout the day, in order to monitor her glucose levels. (Doc. 59, ¶ 8.) Ms. O'Donnell's request to supervisors at SCI–Frackville was forwarded to the Department of Corrections' ADA Committee in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania for consideration. (Doc. 63, Kowalsky Dep. at 40–47.) Defendant Cephus Moore served as Chairman of the ADA Committee that considered Ms. O'Donnell's request. (Doc. 59, ¶ 10.)

In March 2008, the ADA Committee approved Ms. O'Donnell's request insofar as she sought permission to bring medical supplies into SCI–Frackville. SCI–Frackville is designated as a Level 4, maximum security institution that houses inmates who have been convicted of very serious offenses. ( Id., ¶¶ 2, 3, 11.) Thus, although the ADA Committee approved Ms. O'Donnell's request for permission to bring these outside medical devices and materials into SCI–Frackville, the Committee deferred to the Superintendent of the prison as to how best to implement the Committee's decision, in light of security concerns applicable to SCI–Frackville and its inmate population. According to Cephus Moore, the ADA Committee expressly did not grant Ms. O'Donnell approval to keep the medical supplies on her person throughout the day due to security concerns. (Doc. 63, Moore Dep. at 25, 30.) After Mr. Moore informed Ms. O'Donnell in writing that the ADA Committee has approved her request for permission to have ready access to her medical supplies, Mr. Moore had no further contact with her. ( Id., ¶¶ 16–17.) Furthermore, Mr. Moore had no supervisory authority over Ms. O'Donnell's employment, ( id., ¶ 24), did not interact with Ms. O'Donnell during the course of her work at SCI–Frackville, ( id., ¶ 25), and had no personal knowledge regarding Ms. O'Donnell's interactions with other staff at SCI–Frackville, ( id., ¶ 26). Moreover, Ms. O'Donnell never voiced a complaint to Mr. Moore concerning her work environment at SCI–Frackville either before or after she requested medical accommodations, although he did receive correspondence from her lawyer asserting that the refusal to accede to Ms. O'Donnell's requested accommodations was a violation of the ADA, which he forwarded to DOC counsel. ( Id., ¶¶ 20, 23, 27.)

During the time that Ms. O'Donnell was requesting permission to keep her medical supplies on her person at SCI–Frackville, Defendant Chiampi, the former Principal at SCI–Frackville, was Ms. O'Donnell's supervisor. (Doc. 59, ¶ 15.) Mr. Chiampi has submitted a sworn declaration in which he attests that he took no adverse actions against Ms. O'Donnell because of her disability or because she requested an accommodation, or after she was granted an accommodation. ( Id., ¶¶ 15–16.) ⁵ Mr. Chiampi further attests that Ms. O'Donnell never once complained to him about her work environment at SCI–Frackville, other than to express dissatisfaction with the accommodation that was provided with respect to her request to keep medical supplies on her person during the workday. (Doc. 59, ¶ 22; Chiampi Decl., ¶ 4.)

After officials with the Department of Corrections failed to approve all of her specific requests to be permitted to keep a number of medical items on her person throughout the workday at the prison, and after she was denied certain promotions and reimbursements for professional development activities, Ms. O'Donnell commenced this litigation on October 14, 2008, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The action was subsequently transferred to this Court on June 19, 2009. In her original complaint, Plaintiff brought a number of claims against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and certain of its supervisory officials, alleging that the Defendants collectively violated her rights under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791 et seq., the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(D), and the PHRA, 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 951 et seq. , by failing to accommodate her requested medical needs, and by retaliating against her in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants retaliated against her by failing to promote her to other positions within the Department to which she applied, and by failing to reimburse her for certain tuition expenses that she incurred during her employment. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and equitable injunctive relief.

On October 1, 2009, Plaintiff amended her complaint to include additional averments. (Doc. 9.) After the Defendants answered the amended complaint, the parties engaged in mandatory mediation proceedings that resulted in the mediator informing the Court that the parties had negotiated a complete settlement of the litigation. (Doc. 21.) Accordingly, the Court entered an order dismissing the case on May 18, 2010, without prejudice to either party moving to reinstate the action within 60 days if settlement had not been consummated. (Doc. 22.) Ultimately, the parties were unable to resolve the litigation through settlement, and the action was reopened. Following discussions between the Court and the parties, the Court entered a case management order setting forth a pre-trial schedule, (Doc. 31), and Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on October 18, 2010, to add additional parties as Defendants (Doc. 32).⁶

Following additional discovery and other pre-trial litigation, Defendants filed two motions for summary judgment. In the first motion (Doc. 58), the Individual Defendants named in this litigation ⁷ move for judgment in their favor. In the second motion (Doc. 65), the Department seeks summary judgment on its own behalf. These motions are fully briefed and ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the motions will be granted in part and denied in part.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal courts are permitted to summarily adjudicate an action in order to dispose of those claims that do not present a “genuine issue as to any material fact,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, and for which a jury trial would, therefore, “be an empty and unnecessary formality,” Peynado v. Sabol, No. 09–355, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134131, 2010 WL 5300563, at *2 (M.D.Pa. Dec. 20, 2010). Rule 56 specifically provides that “[t]he judgment sought should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The substantive law identifies which facts are material, and “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A...