Maldonado-Torres v. Customized Distribution Servs., CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-0400

NACHAY MALDONADO-TORRES, Plaintiff v. CUSTOMIZED DISTRIBUTION SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-0400

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

September 21, 2020

Henry S. Perkin, M.J.

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the Court are Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 34), Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 35), Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 38), and Plaintiff's Sur-Reply in Further Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 44). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Employment

On June 30, 2014, Plaintiff Nachay Maldonado-Torres began working for Customized Distribution Services, Inc. ("CDS") in its Breinigsville, Pennsylvania distribution center. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 3; ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 3.) CDS provides, inter alia, warehousing and logistics services to a variety of customers. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 2.) The Breinigsville facility ships consumer goods products to a variety of large retailers throughout the county. Id.

The parties dispute the exact title of Plaintiff's position. Defendant contends that Plaintiff worked as, and applied for a position as, a "Warehouse Operator." (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 3.) Plaintiff maintains that her badge read "Forklift Operator" and believes that to have been her title. (ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 3). Regardless of Plaintiff's title, her general duties included unloading trucks and collecting boxes and cases of products that were stored in the warehouse and then shipped to customers. (ECF No. 35 at 1.) At times, Plaintiff performed the more physically demanding task of "case picking" where she was required to travel around the distribution center and pick cases from pallets to assemble a customer's order. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 6; ECF No. 35-1¶ 6; ECF No. 35 at 1.) Plaintiff's responsibilities also included operating machinery, such as forklifts, to pick up and move merchandise around the distribution center. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 7; ECF No. 35 at 1.)¹ Plaintiff's then-supervisor, Jeffrey Passaro², testified that a significant part of Defendant's business entailed completing work with a forklift and that Defendant had tasks that needed to be completed with a forklift on a daily basis. (ECF No. 35-1 ¶ ¶ 5-6.)

According to the "Warehouse Operator" sample job description submitted by Defendant, physical demands of the position required the employee to regularly: sit for extended periods of time; use hands to finger, handle, touch or manipulate items; speak and/or hear, stand for extended periods, walk, and reach with hands or arms; occasionally stoop, kneel, or crouch; lift up to fifty (50) pounds repeatedly; and stoop, reach, kneel, twist, and walk which include handling cases of product. (ECF No. 34-3 at 193.) The description specifies that "[r]easonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions." Id. Plaintiff affirmed that, when required to lift merchandise manually, she would lift packages ranging from ten (10) to fifty (50) pounds. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 9: ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 9.) If an employee could not lift a box, they had the option to ask a coworker for help and could utilize pallet jacks for case picking. (ECF No. 35-1 ¶ ¶ 8-9.)

B. Wrist Injury and Light Duty

On September 24, 2014, Plaintiff injured her wrist while working. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 13; ECF No. 35-1¶ 13.) After an evaluation, Plaintiff's medical provider allowed her to return to work with the following restrictions: no pushing, pulling, or lifting greater than ten (10)pounds; no use of vibrating hand, power, or air tools; and no pinching or performing tight fist, gripping activities. (ECF No. 35-11at 12.) Defendant accommodated Plaintiff's restrictions with light duty work which included tasks such as: labeling products, doing inventory, verifying pallets in the checker, helping in the Rack 10 section of the warehouse, doing displays, and helping the clerks with documentation that drivers needed. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 25; ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 25; ECF No. 35 at 3.) While on light duty, Defendant did not require Plaintiff to case pick. (ECF No. 35 at 3.) On January 6, 2015, Plaintiff's provider released her to work without restrictions relating to her wrist injury. (ECF No. 35-11 at 2.)

C. Plaintiff's Pregnancy

In December 2014, Plaintiff learned that she was pregnant via a home pregnancy test. (ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 31.) Plaintiff testified that, when she called her physician's office to schedule her first prenatal appointment, the person to whom she spoke informed her that she should not lift greater than twenty-five (25) pounds due to her pregnancy. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 36; ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 34.) On January 5, 2015, Plaintiff notified Martha Vargas, Human Resources Representative, that she was pregnant. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 40; ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 40.) According to Plaintiff, she inquired as to whether she would need to provide Defendant with a certification of her pregnancy and restrictions. (ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 34.) Because Plaintiff was already on light duty due to her wrist injury, Vargas responded that Plaintiff would not need to provide any such certification. Id. Vargas testified that, during this conversation, Plaintiff brought up the topic of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and told Vargas that she would let her know whether she would request such leave in connection with her pregnancy. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 40.) Plaintiff disputes this as she claims that she had no prior knowledge of what FMLA was. (ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 40.)

On January 7, 2015, Plaintiff visited a hospital for abdominal pain. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 30; ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 30.) Plaintiff's patient visit summary confirmed that she was in her first trimester of pregnancy and released her to work without specifying any restrictions due to her pregnancy. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶¶ 31-32.) The following day, Plaintiff returned to CDS and provided her supervisor, Manny Coble, with a certification from her hospital visit indicating that she was pregnant. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶¶ 42-44; ECF No. 35-1 ¶¶ 42-44; ECF No. 35 at 3.) Plaintiff further notified Coble that she no longer had light duty restrictions due to her wrist injury. Id. Coblesubsequently assigned Plaintiff to case picking for the day and she requested a different task. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 43; ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 44.) In response to Coble inquiring about the reason for this request, Plaintiff responded that she was pregnant and could not lift more than twenty-five (25) pounds. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 44; ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 44.) Plaintiff testified that she then asked Coble if she would need a note from her physician confirming her lifting restrictions and he replied that he would have to find out as pregnancy was "something personal." (ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 45.)

Plaintiff then met with Sherry Nakata, Operations Manager, and Jeffrey Passaro in Nakata's office. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 45; ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 45.) Passaro asked Plaintiff why she had requested a different assignment and she answered that case picking requires lifting more than twenty-five (25) pounds, an activity that she could not do because of her pregnancy. Id. At that point, Nakata told Plaintiff that they did not have light duty assignments available to accommodate Plaintiff's restrictions. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 46; ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 46.) In her deposition, Nakata stated that, even though she knew during the meeting that there were no light duty assignments available for Plaintiff, she verified this assertion by checking with the warehouse managers and supervisors afterwards. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶¶ 46-47.) Plaintiff testified that Nakata also informed her that the reason they could not accommodate her request was that Defendant granted light duty only to those who sustained work-related injuries and that, because pregnancy was something personal, they would not accommodate her request for a personal reason. (ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 46.) Plaintiff further swore that Passaro confirmed this statement. (ECF No. 35-1 ¶¶ 16, 46.)

At the end of the meeting, Nakata testified that she spoke with Travis Gaito, Human Resources Manager, relaying the information she learned and affirming that she did not have any light duty work assignments available for Plaintiff. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 48.) Gaito confirmed that Nakata could send Plaintiff home for the day so Nakata instructed Plaintiff to "punch out" of work early and leave. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 49; ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 49.)

D. FMLA

On January 12, 2015, Nakata instructed Plaintiff to come to her office to obtain FMLA paperwork. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 52; ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 52.) According to Plaintiff's deposition, Nakata informed Plaintiff that FMLA leave was the only option Defendant could provide to Plaintiff as Defendant could not accommodate Plaintiff's light duty request due to her "personalsituation" of pregnancy. (ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 52.) Plaintiff further testified that, although she had no knowledge of FMLA and did not apply for leave on her own, Nakata had processed Plaintiff's FMLA paperwork and presented it to her in a sealed envelope. Id. When receiving the documents, Plaintiff told Nakata that she did not want to take a leave of absence. Id. Despite this, Nakata instructed Plaintiff to deliver the envelope directly to her physician and return to Nakata sealed. Id.³ On the day Plaintiff received the FMLA paperwork, Nakata testified that she did not recall whether there was any light duty work available for Plaintiff nor did she recall checking whether any such work was available. (ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 19.)

Plaintiff visited Seasons of Life Obstetrics and Gynecology on January 13, 2015 and January 23, 3015 and was treated by Dr. Stephanie Eckert on both occasions. (ECF No. 34-1 ¶ 53; ECF No. 35-1 ¶ 53.) Dr. Eckert completed Plaintiff's FMLA paperwork during these visits and indicated that, based on Plaintiff's job description and essential employee functions, she was unable to lift...