Malik v. Wyo. Valley Med. Ctr., P.C.

UZMA MALIK, Plaintiff, v. WYOMING VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, P.C., et. al, Defendants.

Civil No. 3:19-CV-01547

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

June 22, 2020

Judge Jennifer P. Wilson

MEMORANDUM

Before the court is Defendant Dr. Michael Greenberg's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 17.) Among other allegations not relevant to resolving this motion, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Greenberg committed violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and the Equal Pay Act ("EPA"), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), in addition to the state law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant Greenberg seeks to dismiss each of Plaintiff's claims against him for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim of FMLA retaliation, but has not pled facts sufficient to state a claim of FMLA interference, EPA violation, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. For the reasons that follow, the court grants in part and denies in part Defendant Greenberg's motion to dismiss.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Dr. Uzma Malik filed suit against Defendants Wyoming Valley Medical Center, P.C., Geisinger Health System, Dr. Anand Mahadevan, and Dr. Michael Greenberg, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 USC §§ 12101 et. seq., the FMLA, and the EPA, in addition to various state law tort claims. (See Doc. 11.) Plaintiff only seeks relief from Defendant Greenberg under three of these causes of action by alleging that all the Defendants, including Defendant Greenberg, committed violations of the FMLA and the EPA, in addition to the state law tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at ¶¶ 22, 24, 25.)¹

The following factual background is gleaned from Plaintiff's amended complaint, and is assumed to be true for the purpose of ruling on the pending motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is a board-certified physician who specializes in radiation oncology and cancer treatment. (Id. at ¶ 16.) She suffers from a variety of chronic conditions including diabetes, fibromyalgia, back and limb issues, lumbar disc diseases, and cyst problems. (Id. at ¶ 20.) About 13 years ago, she began working at Defendant Wyoming Valley Medical Center, which is owned and operated by Defendant Geisinger Health System. (Id. at ¶¶ 12, 17.) DefendantMahadevan, the chairman of the radiation oncology department at Wyoming Valley Medical Center, and Defendant Greenberg, another "high level manager" there, oversaw and managed Plaintiff's work. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-11, 19, 83.)

In January 2018, Plaintiff began discussing her intention to take FMLA leave from the beginning of February through May of 2018. (Id. at ¶ 25.) A week before she began her leave, Defendants announced that they were eliminating her position as radiation oncology director and creating a new but "virtually identical" director-level position for the department, the northeast regional radiation oncology director, effective January 31, 2018. (Id. at ¶¶ 25-27.) The restructuring reduced her to an "associate" in the department on the day before her leave was scheduled to begin. (Id. at ¶¶ 25-26.) While Plaintiff was on leave, Defendant Greenberg filled in for her. (Id. at ¶ 27.) At the end of her leave in May 2018, she applied for the newly restructured director-level position, but she was "not given meaningful consideration or hired for the job." (Id. at ¶ 27-28.) When she returned to work from FMLA leave, she was reinstated as an associate in the radiation oncology department. (Id. at ¶ 30.) Effective July 2018, Defendant Greenberg assumed the role of northeast regional radiation oncology director. (Id. at ¶ 29.)

Upon returning to work, Plaintiff contends that Defendants subjected her to a "very hostile work environment," due to repeated discipline, admonishment,scrutiny, ostracism, derogatory treatment, disparate treatment with respect to company policies, negative references concerning the quality of her health, and failures to provide her with medical accommodations. (Id. at ¶¶ 34-35.) In early 2019, Defendant Greenberg referred Plaintiff to Pennsylvania's medical licensure board for evaluation due to concerns that she was not fit to practice medicine in connection with an alleged addiction to prescription pills. (Id. at ¶¶ 40-41, 48.) Plaintiff was required to leave work for five weeks to undergo an investigation by the State, which included submitting to extensive medical evaluations. (Id. at ¶ 43.)

On May 17, 2019, Pennsylvania approved Plaintiff to resume practicing medicine and confirmed that it would not proceed with any disciplinary action two months later. (Id. at ¶ 50.) In early July, Defendants suspended Plaintiff for leaving work two hours early when she was feeling sick. (Id. at ¶¶ 61-62.) Later that month on July 23, 2019, Defendants converted Plaintiff's suspension into termination for allegedly making a false entry in a patient chart. (Id. at ¶ 69.)

Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants on September 6, 2019. (Doc. 1.) She subsequently filed an amended complaint adding another cause of action against Defendants Wyoming Valley Medical Center and Geisinger Health System. (Doc. 11.) On December 6, 2019, Defendant Greenberg filed a motion todismiss the claims against him. (Doc. 17.)² On December 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to Defendant Greenberg's motion, and Defendant Greenberg submitted a timely reply brief. (Docs. 19-20.) Defendant Greenberg's motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and is ripe for review.

JURISDICTION

Plaintiff alleges various violations of the FMLA and the EPA against Dr. Greenberg. (See Doc. 11, at ¶¶ 22, 24.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this court has jurisdiction over claims that arise under the laws of the United States. Plaintiff also alleges a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, which stems from the same controversy as the alleged violations of the FMLA and the EPA. (Id. at 25.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this court has jurisdiction over the state law claim because it is sufficiently related to the federal claims in the action that it forms part of the same case or controversy.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In order "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible on its face "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonableinference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "Conclusory allegations of liability are insufficient" to survive a motion to dismiss. Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 92 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79). To determine whether a complaint survives a motion to dismiss, a court identifies "the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim for relief," disregards the allegations "that are no more than conclusions and thus not entitled to the assumption of truth," and determines whether the remaining factual allegations "plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352, 365 (3d Cir. 2012).

DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant Greenberg exercised supervisory authority over her under the FMLA and the EPA.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Greenberg can be held individually liable for violations of the FMLA, for interference and retaliation, and the EPA amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), for gender-based pay disparities, because he exercised supervisory authority over her. (See Doc. 11 at ¶¶ 22, 24.) In response, Defendant Greenberg argues that Plaintiff's claims under the FMLA and the FLSA should be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to plead facts that establish that Defendant Greenberg exercised any control over her employment. (See Doc. 18, at 8, 11.)

Upon review of this issue, the court concludes that Defendant Greenberg exercised supervisory authority over Plaintiff for the purposes of finding individual liability under the FMLA and the FLSA. The FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)(A)(ii), and the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), provide that an "employer" includes "any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer to any of the employees of such employer." The Third Circuit has held that both the FMLA and FLSA allow for the imposition of individual liability. See, e.g., Haybarger v. Lawrence Cty. Adult Prob. & Parole, 667 F.3d 408, 414 (3d Cir. 2012) (stating that the FMLA permits individual liability); Thompson v. Real Estate Mortg. Network, 748 F.3d 142, 153-54 (3d Cir. 2014) (stating that the FLSA may impose individual liability).

To that end, "an individual supervisor working for an employer may be liable as an employer under the FMLA," Haybarger, 667 F.3d at 415, and a "company's owners, officers, or supervisory personnel may also constitute 'joint employers' for purposes of liability under the FLSA." Thompson, 748 F.3d at 153. An individual may be held liable as an employer under the FMLA and the FLSA, when he exercises "supervisory authority over the complaining employee and was responsible in whole or part for the alleged violation while acting in the employer's interest." Haybarger, 667 F.3d at 417 (internal quotation omitted); Thompson, 748 F.3d at 153 (citing Haybarger, 667 F.3d at 417).

The Third Circuit uses the "economic reality" test to determine whether an individual exercised "supervisory authority" over an employee. Haybarger, 667 F.3d at 417-18. In applying the "economic reality" test, courts should consider whether the individual:

(1) had the power to hire and fire the employee, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or

...