Huntsman v. MMC Corp.

JANICE HUNTSMAN, Plaintiff, v. MMC CORP, D/B/A MMC CONTRACTORS, INC.; Defendant.

No. 5:21-cv-06138-RK

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, St. Joseph Division

February 23, 2023

ORDER

ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant MMC Corp., d/b/a MMC Contractors Inc.'s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 36.) The motion is fully briefed. (Docs. 37, 40, 44.)^[1]After careful consideration and for the reasons explained below, the motion is GRANTED.

I. Background^[2]

Plaintiff Janice Huntsman began her employment with Defendant MMC Corp. in 2004. From 2015 until her termination in December 2020 Plaintiff held the position of Senior Payroll Accountant. Plaintiff was approximately 58 years old when she was terminated.

As the Senior Payroll Accountant, Plaintiff provided payroll support for the more than 500 union employees across multiple states, including processing weekly payroll, completing union reports, verifying employment. From January 2019 to May 2021, Vickie Sparks supervised only female employees, including Plaintiff. The accounting department included ten women, several of whom were older than Plaintiff, and two men. Joyce Wohler, who was supervised by Ms. Sparks and was designated to assume Plaintiff's position when Plaintiff retired, was over the age of 40 during the relevant time.

In March 2020, Plaintiff and others began working at home in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. MMC Corp. initiated a staged return for its employees to in-person work in May 2020. At her deposition, Plaintiff testified that she had a conversation with Ms. Sparks sometime in May 2020 after which Plaintiff understood that she would be allowed to work remotely until her planned retirement in December 2021. Nonetheless, Plaintiff returned to the office for in-person work on August 3, 2020.

Before working from home in response to COVID-19, Plaintiff had been assigned a private office space. Upon returning to the office in August 2020, however, Plaintiff was assigned a shared office space. Ms. Wohler (Plaintiff's designated replacement for when Plaintiff retired) was assigned the private office space that Plaintiff had previously occupied. Ms. Sparks testified at her deposition that Ms. Wohler was assigned the private space because Ms. Sparks “wanted to have [Ms. Wohler] next to me so I could train her to perform the payroll duties.” (Doc. 37-2 at 4.) Plaintiff returned to working remotely a few weeks later between August 25, 2020, and August 31, 2020, to take care of her husband who was disabled and who had recently broken his ankle.

On September 2, 2020, Ms. Sparks and Erik Dahl counseled Plaintiff regarding her professionalism and demeanor in the workplace, including how Plaintiff voiced her concerns and fear about working in-person due to COVID-19. Two days later, on September 4, 2020, Plaintiff took leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) for major depression, panic disorder, and severe anxiety.

Plaintiff was initially approved for a period of four weeks of FMLA leave, i.e., until approximately October 5, 2020, pending release by her physician. On October 5, Plaintiff notified Defendant's benefits manager and HR systems administrator, Joanna Wright, by email that Plaintiff had not been released from care and that her doctor was completing new FMLA paperwork. Ms. Wright received Plaintiff's new FMLA paperwork from Plaintiff's doctor, Dr. M.A. Mirza at White Oak Psychiatric Services, on October 7, 2020, indicating an estimated return date of November 18, 2020. The following day, Ms. Wright informed Plaintiff by email that her FMLA leave had been approved from “9/4-11/11/20, subject to an update and release from your doctor.”

Approximately one month later, on November 3, 2020, Plaintiff notified Ms. Wright by email that she would “not be released by my Doctor to return to work at the end of my FMLA,” and “will update you when I have more information.” Ms. Wright responded by email less than an hour later requesting an update from Plaintiff's doctor regarding her continued leave “by 11/11/20 if possible.”

Plaintiff's FMLA leave was exhausted on November 11, 2020. On the same day, Plaintiff and Ms. Wright exchanged several emails concerning the exhaustion of her FMLA leave, Dr. Mirza's prior indication that leave was necessary until approximately November 18, 2020, and Plaintiff's request for one more week of leave pending a doctor's appointment that was scheduled for November 17, 2020. On the evening of November 17, 2020, Ms. Wright emailed Plaintiff requesting an update from Plaintiff's scheduled doctor's visit. Plaintiff responded the following morning that, “Per my Doctor, I am unable to return to work at this time. I will need to be off work for another 4 to 6 weeks while receiving additional treatment.” Shortly after receiving this email, Ms. Wright responded, asking for “an updated note from your doctor indicating your need for additional time off and the anticipated return date[.]” Plaintiff stated that she would request the information and “will get it to you as soon as I can.”

On November 19, 2020, Ms. Wright emailed Plaintiff stating that a doctor's note had not yet been received and requesting that Plaintiff provide one that day. Plaintiff responded the next morning, November 20, 2020, indicating that she would “request this from one of the Doctors that I am currently seeing again today.” When Ms. Wright requested a timeframe to expect the doctor's note, Plaintiff responded that she was not sure about a time but would follow up with one of her doctors. That same afternoon, Ms. Wright received an “accommodation letter” for Plaintiff from Arianna Williams, a licensed processional counselor. Ms. Wright informed Plaintiff by email that she had received the letter and requested that Plaintiff provide “information about your schedule for seeing your psychiatrist and therapist,” and noted that Plaintiff's counselor had “suggested a note from Dr. M[irza] . . . may be appropriate.” Plaintiff responded that she would “request a letter from Dr. Mirza and will get it to you.”

On November 23, 2023, Ms. Wright emailed Plaintiff that her FMLA leave had finally exhausted on November 11, 2020, and that “since you have not returned to work, your group health benefits will now have to be offered through COBRA.”^[3]Ms. Wright informed Plaintiff that “[w]hen you return to work, you can rejoin our group plan without any waiting period” and that coverage under COBRA “will backdate to November 12, 2020.”

Ms. Wright testified that it is MMC Corp.'s “practice” that “[w]hen a person has not returned from leave, and . . . there's no date for them returning from leave, their FMLA is expired, they are put on [COBRA]” [sic]. (Doc. 37-10 at 4.) Plaintiff attests that, as a payroll accountant, she is aware of one male employee, Dave Andrews, who “had exhausted FMLA leave and was not required to be converted to COBRA health insurance; other employees would donate their PTO time to him so he could continue to carry the benefits, and even when he was in the hospital.” (Doc. 40-13 at 2, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff ultimately continued her health insurance through COBRA.

On December 1, 2020, Ms. Wright emailed Plaintiff indicating that she had not received the additional information that had been requested from Dr. Mirza and Plaintiff's counselor, Ms. Williams. Ms. Wright explained that “we need this information to evaluate your request for extended leave” and concluded: “It is very important we receive this information no later than 3:00pm on Friday, December 4 or we will accept this as having resigned your employment with MMC Contractors.” Approximately one hour later, Plaintiff responded that she would “follow up with [Ms. Williams] during my appointment tomorrow morning,” “forward this form to Dr. Mirza's office today,” and would follow up with Dr. Mirza “at my Thursday appointment.” Plaintiff also indicated that she did not intend to resign her position.

The morning of December 4, 2020, Plaintiff sent an email to Ms. Wright requesting that she “confirm that you have received the requested information from [Ms. Williams] . . . this morning,” and also that “I have requested the form also be completed by Dr. Mirza and hoping it is sent to you today as well.” Plaintiff again indicated that she did not intend to resign. Ms. Wright responded that she had received the updated information from Ms. Williams and that she would “watch for the info from Dr. Mirza.”

On December 7, 2020, Ms. Wright informed Plaintiff that she had not received an update from Dr. Mirza. Plaintiff responded that she would “reach out to his office again to see if they can provide something to you regarding my ongoing treatment.” Ms. Wright emailed Plaintiff later that afternoon to confirm Ms. Williams' request that Plaintiff be off work until December 26, 2020, and that Plaintiff was requesting to “work from home after that for a period of time” as an accommodation. Ms. Wright also noted: “Information from Dr. Mirza about the time up until 12/26 is helpful to fully evaluate your leave needs, especially if he thinks you can work Tues & Thurs [sic] when not in treatment. That's what we are trying to confirm for certain.” Plaintiff responded as follows:

Just an FYI, I meet with my individual therapist on the days I am not in group and I meet with Dr. Mirza about every 10 days. Due to insurance limitations, I can only talk with one Doctor per day.

After Ms. Wright again asked for confirmation of the current requests for time off from work and accommodations, Plaintiff responded that it was her “understanding that I would need to be off through December 31 and an accommodation to work from home after that, for a period of time.” Ms Wright...