Holland v. Shinseki

JOANNE HOLLAND, Plaintiff,

v.ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-0908-B

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

SIGNED January 18, 2012

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc.20), filed June 6, 2011. For the following reasons, the Court finds Defendant's Motion should be and hereby is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

I.BACKGROUND¹

This matter presently before the Court arises in the context of a discrimination and retaliation suit filed by Plaintiff Joanne Holland ("Holland") concerning events that occurred while she was employed by the Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center ("Dallas VA"). Plaintiff alleges that while employed by the Dallas VA, Defendant (1) discriminated against her by failing to provide areasonable accommodation for her disability; (2) interfered with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act; and (3) retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity under the Rehabilitation Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and Title VII.

A. Plaintiff's EEO Complaint

Holland's employment as a nurse at the Dallas VA began in 2003. Pl.'s Resp. 2. In March, 2008, Holland worked as a nurse in the Dallas VA operating room. Id. The events underlying this suit began on March 7, 2008, when the Dallas area was affected by inclement winter weather. Id. at 3. On that same day, Holland contacted her supervisor at the Dallas VA and informed her that she was unable to safely commute to work due to the hazardous road conditions. Pl.'s App. 53. Despite her description of icy road conditions, Holland's supervisor and nurse manager Cathy McClellan ("McClellan") placed Holland on Absent Without Leave ("AWOL") status. Id.

Following her March 7, 2008 AWOL designation, Holland initiated an Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") complaint against McClellan, alleging that the AWOL designation constituted race and national origin discrimination. Pl.'s Resp. 3. On April 3, 2008, Holland contacted her EEO counselor's office. Pl.'s App. 51. Holland and her EEO counselor conducted an initial interview on April 9, 2008. Id. The EEO counselor notified the Dallas VA of the informal counseling session with Holland by mail on April 10, 2008. Id. at 52. The notification was received by the Dallas VA facility on April 15, 2008. Id. Afterwards, the EEO counselor conducted an interview with McClellan in which McClellan recounted her version of the events of March 7, 2008. Id. at 54. The EEO counselor also discussed the alternative dispute resolution process with the Dallas VA EEO Program Manager, Florine McCall ("McCall"). Id. at 52. On April 25, 2008, Associate Director of Patient Care Services Sandra Griffin ("Griffin"), McCall, and other Dallas VA officials declined to mediateHolland's informal complaint through the alternative dispute resolution process. Id. at 61. Once notified of the declination, Holland filed a formal complaint of employment discrimination against the Dallas VA on May 17, 2008. Id. at 56.

According to Holland, after making her initial informal complaint with her EEO counselor, she was subjected to excessive and unwarranted scrutiny of her work performance by her supervisor. Specifically, Holland references an incident on May 1, 2008, in which McClellan reprimanded her for an alleged operating room instrument count, and an incident in which McClellan reprimanded her for being late to surgery. Id. at 20; Pl.'s Resp. 3.

Holland alleges that the increased scrutiny she received while working at the Dallas VA caused her to develop a number of medical ailments and disabilities. Holland states that during this time she began to suffer from anxiety, loss of concentration, weight loss, insomnia, depression, severe headaches, anemia, and heavy menstrual bleeding. Pl.'s Resp. 4. According to Holland, these conditions persisted throughout the events of this matter, and have continued to today. Id.

B. Plaintiff's Request for FMLA Leave

On May 6, 2008, Holland sent an email to Griffin requesting one month of unpaid leave and reassignment on her return. Pl.'s App. 114. On May 21-22, 2008, Griffin corresponded with Dallas VA personnel concerning Holland's informal request for unpaid leave, and informed Holland to complete a written request for leave with her nurse manager (McClellan). Pl.'s App. 113. According to Holland, during two staff meetings that followed on May 28, 2008 and June 4, 2008, McClellan intimidated her by discussing, with other staff members present, the difficulties caused by granting leave and the consequences for taking unapproved leave. Pl.'s Resp. 5. On June 6, 2008, Holland requested leave by submitting a FMLA leave form with medical documentation to Griffin, along witha letter seeking to exclude McClellan's involvement in the matter. Pl.'s App. 116-21. A few days later, on June 12, 2008, Holland emailed Dallas VA personnel, including Griffin, concerning the status of her FMLA leave request. Id. at 122-23. The parties exchanged correspondence regarding whether Holland's nurse manager, McClellan, was required to sign the leave request. Id. On June 13, 2008, Holland submitted her leave request to McClellan. Id. at 125. Later that day, Griffin and other Dallas VA personnel held a telephonic conference with Holland to discuss her request for FMLA leave. Id. at 79. Holland's request for leave was approved during the telephone conference. Id. at 126. Following the telephone conference, Holland sought written confirmation that her request for FMLA leave had been approved. Id. Holland went on unpaid leave beginning on June 16, 2008. Id.

Holland requested an extension of her FMLA leave on July 21, 2008. Id. at 131. According to Holland, she received written confirmation of her first request for FMLA leave on July 23, 2008, but did not receive written confirmation of her request for an extension of her FMLA leave. Pl.'s Resp. 6.

C. Plaintiff's Requests for Accommodation²

On September 4, 2008, Holland contacted the Dallas VA by email, indicating her intent to return to work in a position that did not involve direct patient care and included a limited schedule restricted to the hours from 7:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. with one day off every two weeks. Pl.'s App. 137-40. Griffin responded by informing Plaintiff that she would need to submit a request for a Reasonable Accommodation to the Reasonable Accommodation Committee. Id. On September 5,2008, Holland submitted a formal request for a Reasonable Accommodation, accompanied by a certification provided by her physician, indicating that Holland was "not able to provide adequate direct patient care". Id. at 132-36. Over the next several days, Holland continued to email Griffin, McCall, and other Dallas VA personnel, including Chris Seaton, Mariamma Kurian, and Richard Shaw about her Reasonable Accommodation request. Id. at 137-38. The Dallas VA then scheduled a meeting with Holland to discuss her Reasonable Accommodation request and informed Holland that the Dallas VA would no longer communicate with her via email. Id. at 141. At a September 29, 2008 meeting, Holland discussed a number of employment-related matters with Dallas VA personnel. Id. at 143. During the September 29, 2008 meeting, the Dallas VA declined Holland's Reasonable Accommodation request and the parties discussed other possible resolutions. Id.

On October 3, 2008, Holland emailed the Dallas VA, indicating that she had been upgraded by her doctor to provide direct patient care. Id. at 144-45. Holland's doctor requested that she not be assigned to work under her present supervisor (McClellan), and that she receive a limited schedule restricted to the hours from 7:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m. with one day off every two weeks. Id. In October, Holland returned to work and was placed by the Dallas VA in a temporary position in the Flu Clinic, assigned to the hours from 7:30 a.m.-2:00 p.m. Pl.'s Resp. 8. The record does not include any communications between Holland and the Dallas VA addressing the details of Holland's placement in this position. Further, the record is devoid of any indication whether Holland resisted placement in this position, or that this position affected her salary or benefits. In December 2008, Holland was placed in another temporary position as a Continual Care Home Telenurse ("CCHT"). Again, the record does not reflect details of Holland's reaction, if any, to her CCHT assignment. Id.

On December 12, 2008, Holland emailed the Dallas VA requesting reassignment to aposition in Patient Safety. Pl.'s App. 108. In her request, Holland identified the availability of a position under the Patient Safety Manager that would enable her to work the hours from 7:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m. Id. On that same day, Plaintiff's doctor submitted a letter notifying the Dallas VA that Holland's medical conditions persisted. Holland's doctor, however, recommended she was now capable of providing direct patient care and recommended the reduced work hours from 7:00 a.m.-2:30 p.m. Id. at 146. Griffin responded and informed Holland that the Dallas VA still needed her in CCHT and she remained therefore assigned to CCHT. Id.

On January 15, 2009, while in CCHT, Holland again emailed the Dallas VA requesting further accommodations. Id. at 64-65. By letter that same day, Plaintiff's doctor expressed concern for Holland's health and recommended Holland's reassignment with work hours from 7:00 a.m.-3:30 p.m. and one day off per week. Id. at 65. Plaintiff's doctor's letter made no reference to the status of Holland's specific symptoms or medical conditions. Id. On January 29, 2009, the Dallas VA responded by letter requesting additional medical documentation of her diagnosis and condition. Id. at 67. On March 12, 2009, Holland responded by providing an updated letter from her doctor that contained information relevant to her medical condition and reiterating her past accommodation...