Martinez v. UHS of Del., Inc.

162 F.Supp.3d 796

Veronica Martinez, Plaintiff,

v.UHS of Delaware, Inc. and/or Springfield Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Lincoln Prairie Behavioral Health Care, Defendants.

NO. 13-3070

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division.

Signed February 17, 2016

Filed February 18, 2016

Richard L. Steagall, Ryan Scott McCracken, Nicoara & Steagall, Peoria, IL, for Plaintiff.

Robert J. McLaughlin, Misty R. Martin, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

OPINION

RICHARD MILLS, United States District Judge:

Veronica Martinez brings this action against her former employer asserting failure to accommodate and unlawful termination claims pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 2008 (“ADA”).

Pending is the Motion of Defendant Springfield Hospital, Inc. d/b/a/ Lincoln Prairie Behavioral Health Center (the “Defendant” or “Lincoln Prairie”) for Summary Judgment.

At the end of the day, the motion is allowed.

But first, let us review the facts.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Veronica Martinez was employed as a Clinical Nurse Manager for Lincoln Prairie when she was terminated in November of 2012. The Plaintiff has been diagnosed with and treated for depression and bipolar disorder.

Lincoln Prairie is an inpatient (residential) psychiatric hospital for pediatric and adolescent patients. Its philosophy is to promote healing of children and families through compassionate and supportive care by providing a safe, nurturing and comfortable environment.

A. Lincoln Prairie

Lincoln Prairie is a “lockdown” secured facility. The pediatric and adolescent patients are not free to leave the facility and are wholly dependent on staff members to care for them and to provide for their physical and emotional needs. Patients are involuntarily admitted to the facility because they are at risk of harm to themselves, to others, or their parents cannot care for them due to the severity of their acute mental health conditions.

The primary responsibility of the nursing staff is the day to day care and safety of the patients. The risk of physical aggression from patients is a daily occurrence. In 2012, patients would bite, scratch, kick, throw things, attack staff, attack each other and self-injure. The Plaintiff herself has personally experienced this behavior. On one occasion, the Plaintiff was attacked by a patient and had her hair pulled, kicked and punched. The Plaintiff was attacked, put in a hold, fell to the ground and hit her head on the floor. A patient bit the Plaintiff while conducting physical restraint. A patient dug his nails and scratched the Plaintiff.

To address these risks, the facility staffs each unit with a sufficient number of adequately trained and experienced personnel. Based on the acuity of the unit, there should be at least 1-2 registered nurses per floor. The facility was generally slower during the summer months and would get busier (increased patient population) in September, which was the beginning of the school year. If a unit is left understaffed, there is a significant safety risk of physical harm to the residents and staff members.

The Plaintiff disputes that the facility was always adequately staffed. The condition of the patient population varied, which would affect the number of necessary staff. The Plaintiff claims she always worked at least two hours after her shift was scheduled to end. Additionally, she and other employees were on call after hours and on weekends.

To ensure compliance with various state and federal regulations, Lincoln Prairie would be subject to internal compliance site inspections. The Plaintiff knew and understood that a corporate visit was an intense and critical time at the facility.

In 2012, the Plaintiff was a clinical nurse manager of the pediatric unit. The clinical nurse manager is the most senior “hands on” person on the unit responsible for the management of patient care and is the role model and leader to staff. The nurse manager oversees the unit, the staff nurses and documentation.

The Defendant alleges that the pediatric unit that Plaintiff was assigned to is one of the more acute units at the facility. The Plaintiff purports to dispute the assertion, claiming there could be an aggressive patient on any floor.

In 2012, Renae Hale was the Chief Nursing Officer and Plaintiff's direct manager. The Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) was Mark Littrell and Tami Ireland was the human resource director.

B. Lincoln Prairie's policies¹

The Plaintiff was an employee-at-will for Lincoln Prairie and could be terminated at any time for any reason with or without notice. The facility did not require the implementation of any disciplinary plan prior to termination. The Plaintiff disputes this to the extent that the facility had a progressive discipline plan which was not followed in her case. The Defendant notes that company policy provides that based on the severity of the situation, disciplinary steps may be eliminated and/or it may be appropriate to immediately terminate the employee.

The Plaintiff received and acknowledged Lincoln Prairie's Employee Handbook, Attendance, Human Resource and Code of Conduct Policy and agreed to abide by it. The facility has policies that relate to the behavior of employees. The Plaintiff acknowledged these rules, which included the following:

Certain rules and regulations regarding employee behavior are necessary for the efficient operation of the Facility and for the benefit and protection of the rights and safety of all. Conduct that interferes with Facility operations, brings discredit to the Facility, or is offensive to patients or fellow employees will not be tolerated. ... [including but not limited to]

• Non-compliance with any established Facility policy or work rules.

• Insubordination, including refusal to do assigned work or refusal to perform work in the manner described by a supervisor without proper justification.

• Inattention to duties or unsatisfactory job performance.

• Violation of any Facility safety and health rules or standards.

Lincoln Prairie employees are required to exercise appropriate judgment and conduct themselves in a manner that reflects use of common sense and good judgment, including (1) a total commitment to providing the highest quality of care through personal effort; (2) carrying out the written policies and procedures designed to enhance the dignity of patients; (3) avoidance of conflicting outside activities; (4) contribute to a supportive work environment by working to maintain a positive attitude; and (5) conduct relationships between staff that is characterized by mutual respect. Lincoln Prairie made clear to its employees that disciplinary action could result from: (a) inadequate or incompetent job performance; (b) failing to follow the directives of management; (c) abusive or improper treatment of patients or other employees; (d) violation of the attendance policy; or (e) failure to follow the code of conduct and ethical standards.

Lincoln Prairie relies on punctual attendance in order to provide quality patient care. The Plaintiff was expected to be at the facility at 7:00 a.m. on her scheduled shift. The Defendant alleges that, if she was not coming in, she was supposed to call-in by 5:00 a.m., two hours before the start of her shift. As a supervisor, the Plaintiff disputes she was subject to the call-in policy, though she says she adhered to it.

Lincoln Prairie has a written policy setting forth that it complies with the ADA and it provides equal employment to individuals with physical or mental handicaps and will, upon request and evaluating of the facts and circumstances, make reasonable accommodations to otherwise qualified individuals.

C. Plaintiff's mental health and FMLA leave

The Plaintiff did not tell Lincoln Prairie about her mental health illness when she was hired in 2009. The Plaintiff states that the ADA prohibits pre-employment inquires about disabilities and she was not asked on the employment application about mental health illness.

In 2012, the Plaintiff voluntarily elected to stop taking her mental health medication and undergo electroconvulsive therapy (“ECT”) because she wanted to try and get pregnant. In connection with the treatment, the Plaintiff applied for (and was granted) leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA Leave”) in January of 2012. The Plaintiff's physician noted the FMLA leave was necessary for the Plaintiff's “major depressive disorder, recurrent without psychosis [and] generalized anxiety disorder.” The paperwork did not inform Lincoln Prairie that she had bipolar disorder, for which she was diagnosed in 2007. The Plaintiff did not submit other medical information or any medical records in support of her request for leave.

Lincoln Prairie granted the Plaintiff's request for FMLA leave. The Plaintiff began ECT treatment in February of 2012 but then voluntarily withdrew from treatment and returned to work. The Plaintiff did not like the treatment and decided to return to her medication. The Plaintiff stated that the ECT treatment was not geared toward her needs and did not benefit her and her last ECT treatment did not go well.

When the Plaintiff returned to work from FMLA leave, she was placed in her same job position and her same pay. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not request any accommodations upon return and returned without any restrictions. The Plaintiff was able to adequately perform her duties upon her return. The Plaintiff was able to return to work, communicate with patients and staff, and drive her vehicle. The Plaintiff disputes the allegation that she did not request an accommodation. In June of 2012, the Plaintiff claims she had discussions with her supervisor, Renae Hale, about stepping down from her Clinical Nurse Manager position due to stress and moving to another position. In August and September of 2012, the Plaintiff alleges she had further discussions with Hale and reiterated she could no longer handle the demands of the...