Heredia-Caines v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc.

580 F.Supp.3d 114

Francesca HEREDIA-CAINES, Plaintiff,

v.LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL, INC., Defendant.

Civil No. 5:19-cv-05815-JMG

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed January 18, 2022

Nathaniel N. Peckham, Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

A. James Johnston, Andrea Meryl Kirshenbaum, Eve R. Keller, Post & Schell, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, David E. Renner, FisherBroyles, LLP, Moon Township, PA, Glenn Guanowsky, Lehigh Valley Hospital & Health Network Department of Legal Services, Allentown, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GALLAGHER, United States District Court Judge

I. OVERVIEW

Plaintiff claims she was subjected to various forms of racial discrimination and retaliation while working as a Customer Service Agent for Defendant. Plaintiff has brought this suit under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 seeking recompense for that mistreatment. Defendant denies Plaintiff's claims and has asked this Court to enter summary judgment in its favor on each count.

Discrimination cases necessarily elicit strong feelings for all the individuals involved. For this reason, the Court emphasizes that it does not pass judgment on the truth of either party's version of the facts. Instead, when resolving a motion for summary judgment such as the one presently before this Court, the Court simply construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, here Plaintiff, and determines only whether reasonable minds could disagree with the movant, here Defendant, about how to interpret that evidence. Accordingly, and for the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's motion only in part.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

a. Allegations

Plaintiff is from Puerto Rico and is Hispanic. DSUF ¶ 3; PCSMF ¶ 3. She worked for Defendant for almost six years between 2013 and 2018. DSUF ¶¶ 4, 138; PCSMF ¶¶ 4, 138. Plaintiff began her tenure working as a Scheduling Coordinator but transferred to the Patient Financial Services Department in 2015 to become a Customer Service Agent. DSUF ¶¶ 4, 6; PCSMF ¶¶ 4, 6. Plaintiff worked as a Customer Service Agent until she resigned on November 27, 2018. DSUF ¶ 140; PCSMF ¶ 140.

When Plaintiff began working in the Patient Financial Services Department, she worked under a hierarchy of three managers. Plaintiff reported directly to a supervisor named Mr. Roth. DSUF ¶ 12; PCSMF ¶ 12. Mr. Roth reported to a manager named Ms. Gerancher. DSUF ¶ 12; PCSMF ¶ 12. And Ms. Gerancher reported to Mr. Hinkle, the Vice President of Patient Financial Services. DSUF ¶ 32; PCSMF ¶ 32.

Plaintiff's complaints of discriminatory treatment, insofar as they relate to the claims that remain in this case, began with the allegedly abrasive conduct of Mr. Roth over the course of the two years between 2016 and 2017. Defendant alleges that Mr. Roth was generally known to be a somewhat ill-tempered and unpleasant supervisor, but Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Roth singled out Hispanic employees for particularly severe and offensive treatment. DSUF ¶¶ 44–45; PCSMF ¶¶ 44–45.

Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Roth regularly made offensive comments about Hispanic individuals. For example, when Plaintiff would voice her opinion that Patient Financial Services should create a dedicated phoneline for Spanish speaking patients, Mr. Roth would allegedly respond that non-Hispanic patients did not want to "hear that there is a Spanish line" and that Hispanic individuals need to "learn English" or find "someone that can speak the language." DSUF ¶¶ 38–40; PCSMF ¶¶ 38–40. Plaintiff also alleges that she once heard Mr. Roth tell two of Plaintiff's Hispanic colleagues that Puerto Ricans used to have to "apply for papers to come to this country." DSUF ¶ 42; PCSMF ¶ 42. In total, Mr. Roth allegedly made comments like these on about five occasions.

Plaintiff also alleges that Mr. Roth was physically aggressive toward Plaintiff and other Hispanic employees. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. Roth yelled at her a couple of times and that Mr. Roth once raised his voice at her when she asked for help with a difficult call. DSUF ¶¶ 46–47; PCSMF ¶¶ 46–47. Plaintiff also allegedly witnessed Mr. Roth pound his fists on Plaintiff's Hispanic colleagues’ desks on at least four occasions and witnessed Mr. Roth yell at her Hispanic colleagues on at least five occasions. DSUF ¶ 47; PCSMF ¶ 47. Plaintiff once emailed Mr. Roth's supervisor, Ms. Gerancher, to complain that Mr. Roth had a practice of "verbally abusing employees on a daily basis." DSUF ¶ 43; PCSMF ¶ 43.

Plaintiff also alleges that Mr. Roth improperly marked her absent on two days between 2016 and 2017 when she had actually been taking approved medical leave. DSUF ¶¶ 30, 32–33; PCSMF ¶¶ 30, 32–33. Ms. Gerancher confirmed that one of the absences had been improperly recorded and corrected the record accordingly. DSUF ¶ 34; PCSMF ¶ 34. When Plaintiff escalated her complaint about the second absence to a human resources representative, the representative informed Plaintiff that she needed to submit further documentation to have the second absence removed from her record. DSUF ¶ 36; PCSMF ¶ 36. Plaintiff did not submit this documentation, and the second absence remained on her record. DSUF ¶ 36; PCSMF ¶ 36. Because this absence remained on Plaintiff's record, her overall annual performance score fell to 3.524 when it could have been about 3.547. JA 506. Despite being lower, however, Plaintiff's performance score remained high enough to earn her a merit raise. DSUF ¶ 15; PCSMF ¶ 15.

Beyond Mr. Roth's allegedly discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff alleges that she experienced discrimination in the form of unequal pay. In the summer of 2017, Plaintiff learned that she was earning less than her Caucasian colleague, Ms. Naselli. DSUF ¶¶ 58–59; PCSMF ¶¶ 58–59. Ms. Naselli had just been hired but was earning $16.25 per hour. DSUF ¶ 59; PCSMF ¶ 59. Plaintiff, who had by that point been working with Defendant for more than four years, was earning only $15.41 per hour. DSUF ¶ 59; PCSMF ¶ 59.

Plaintiff brought the pay differential to Mr. Hinkle's attention and asked for a raise. DSUF ¶ 67; PCSMF ¶ 67. Mr. Hinkle was surprised by the differential, believed it was unwarranted, and began asking his colleagues how it had come to be and what could be done about it. JA 750. Mr. Hinkle's questions set off a three-month long inquiry among management into why Plaintiff's wage was lower than Ms. Naselli's. DSUF ¶¶ 77–85; PCSMF ¶¶ 77–85. During this inquiry, a human resources representative informed Plaintiff's manager that salaries are supposed to be set by the recruiter who solicits candidates for the vacant job. JA 749. But the representative believed a manager may have circumvented this policy and set Ms. Naselli's salary unilaterally. JA 749. The inquiry also revealed that two managers had been involved in hiring Ms. Naselli: a person named "Dawn" and Mr. Roth. JA 741. But Dawn had not recommended offering Ms. Naselli a higher salary. JA 741. And Mr. Roth has testified that he did not have any authority to set salaries himself. JA 450–51 (Roth Dep. at 88:24–89:4).

During discovery, Defendant produced another explanation for the pay differential. A manager in Defendant's Compensation Department has testified that Defendant maintains a schedule of pay ranges that determine how much new hires should be paid, that this schedule often provides different levels of compensation for external hires than it does for internal transfers, and that Ms. Naselli's pay was within the pay range established at the time she was hired for an external hire with her experience. JA 455–57 (Decl. Matthew Maidman ¶ 14–20).

While management was debating Plaintiff's request for a raise, a supervisor position became available in Plaintiff's department, and Plaintiff applied. DSUF ¶¶ 94–96; PCSMF ¶¶ 94–96. Three other internal candidates applied, all of whom were Caucasian. DSUF ¶ 96; PCSMF ¶ 96. Ms. Gerancher conducted the interviews of these candidates, but Mr. Roth sat in on these interviews to take notes and to give Ms. Gerancher his opinion on each candidate. DSUF ¶ 101; PCSMF ¶ 101; JA 344 (Gerancher Dep. at 33:20–34:4).

Plaintiff did not get the job. DSUF ¶ 106; PCSMF ¶ 106. Ms. Gerancher has testified that she chose not to promote Plaintiff because Plaintiff performed poorly during her interview. DSUF ¶ 102; PCSMF ¶ 102. According to Ms. Gerancher, Plaintiff did not maintain a "professional, calm demeanor" and "unraveled" during the interview. DSUF ¶ 103; PCSMF ¶ 103. Mr. Roth has also testified that Plaintiff was not answering the questions Ms. Gerancher was asking her. JA 414–15 (Roth Dep. at 48:16–49:1).

Instead of promoting Plaintiff, Ms. Gerancher promoted one of Plaintiff's Caucasian colleagues, Ms. Stone. DSUF ¶ 106; PCSMF ¶ 106. Ms. Stone had more experience working in healthcare and with Defendant than Plaintiff, but Plaintiff had been working for the Patient Financial Services Department for a longer time than Plaintiff. DSUF ¶¶ 108–112; PCSMF ¶¶ 108–112.

Shortly after Plaintiff was passed over for the promotion, she reminded management of her request for a raise. Plaintiff sent an email to Mr. Hinkle restating her request for a raise and, for the first time, explicitly stating that she believed the pay differential was racially discriminatory. DSUF ¶¶ 88–89; PCSMF ¶¶ 88–89. Within a month, Defendant increased Plaintiff's pay to $18.00 per hour. DSUF ¶ 92; PCSMF ¶ 92.

Even after Plaintiff received this raise, however, her relationships with management continued to deteriorate. Mr. Roth transferred out of Plaintiff's department in May of 2018 and had his last contact with Plaintiff in early June of 2018. DSUF ¶¶ 50–51; PCSMF ¶¶ 50–51. But Ms. Stone had taken Mr. Roth's place as Plaintiff's supervisor. DSUF ¶ 113; PCSMF ¶ 113. In June of 2018, Ms. Gerancher and Ms. Stone met with Plaintiff to inform her that she was transferring too many calls to Ms. Stone. DSUF ¶ 113; PCSMF ¶ 113. Following this interaction, Plaintiff experienced...