Masterson-Carr v. Drexel Univ. Coll. of Med.

462 F.Supp.3d 547

Eileen MASTERSON-CARR, Plaintiff,

v.DREXEL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION No. 19-2699

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Filed May 26, 2020

Gerald R. Clarke, Clarke and Associates, Glenside, PA, for Plaintiff.

Charlene A. Barker, Joseph J. Centeno, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

McHUGH, J.

This is an action brought under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. , and state law alleging that Defendant Drexel University College of Medicine ("Drexel") unlawfully terminated Plaintiff Eileen Masterson-Carr ("Masterson-Carr") in retaliation for seeking an extension of the leave to which she was entitled under the statute. Discovery has closed, and Drexel now moves for summary judgment. Because the record conclusively demonstrates that Drexel decided to terminate Masterson-Carr before she submitted her request for an extension, and it provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for doing so independent of that request, Drexel's Motion will be granted.

I. Relevant Background

A. The nature of Masterson-Carr's employment

Masterson-Carr was hired by the Drexel University College of Medicine in April 2015 as the Executive Director of Revenue Cycle Management in the Physician Services Business Department. (Mot. for Summ. J. ("MSJ") Ex. A, at DREXEL 00006-DREXEL 00007, ECF 13-1.)¹ Masterson-Carr was hired on the recommendation of Anthony Esposito, who was then Associate Dean of Financial Affairs for the Drexel University Physicians Administration. (Id. at DREXEL 00007.) Esposito was Masterson-Carr's direct supervisor throughout her tenure with the College. (Pl. Dep. 55:8-10; 99:2.) Under Esposito's auspices, Masterson-Carr's job was to ensure effective management of the Department's revenue. (Ex. C, at 1; Pl. Dep. 50:24-51:21.)

Esposito gave Masterson-Carr favorable employee evaluations in both 2015 and 2016. (See 2015 Performance Evaluation, Ex. D, at 7, ECF 13-2; 2016 Performance Evaluation, Ex. E, at 8, ECF 13-2.) Esposito specifically touted Masterson-Carr's role in identifying a vendor to assist the physician group with an important transition in October 2015. (Pl. Dep. 67:23-68:1.) Indeed, Masterson-Carr testified that Esposito generally valued her performance as an employee during this period. (Id. )

Masterson-Carr worked autonomously and did not require Esposito's input or approval for most of her work. (Id. at 56:18-22; 160:23-161:4.) Consistent with that premise, she was not required to inform Esposito about the absences, lateness, or early departures of employees in her department, and Esposito exercised no direct control over them. (Id. at 157:19-22; 158:20-23; 160:13-22.) But Masterson-Carr testified that Esposito expressed frustration at employee absences and rolled his eyes when he learned an employee was not in the office. (Id. at 63:8-64:7.) Still, Esposito never reversed Masterson-Carr's approval of an employee's request to be absent from the office. (Id. at 64:1-13; 64:20-24.)

B. Masterson-Carr's first investigation for misconduct

Controversy began to surround Masterson-Carr beginning in the summer of 2016. On August 22, 2016, an anonymous complaint reached the College's Office of Equality and Diversity ("OED"), alleging that "[Masterson-Carr had] used discriminatory language towards African American employees." (OED Investigation Report, Ex. H, at 1, ECF 13-2.) The complaint specified that, among other things, Masterson-Carr made stereotypical observations about the body parts of African American employees, including their hair and backsides, as well as incredulous references to the number of children they had. (Id. ) OED launched an investigation headed by Compliance Specialist Kathleen Colgan, who interviewed Masterson-Carr and nine subordinates. (Id. at 1-2.) Colgan completed her investigation in November 2016, concluding that "based on a preponderance of the evidence standard ... insufficient evidence [existed] to support a finding [that Masterson-Carr violated] the Equality and Non-Discrimination Policy." (Id. at 18.) But Colgan noted that the behaviors unearthed by the investigation "may have been inappropriate for the workplace." (Id. ) Based on that conclusion, OED "referred [the matter] to Human Resources to address those behaviors." (Id. ) On November 18, 2016, Colgan sent Masterson-Carr an email communicating OED's findings as well as her rights to appeal under university policy. (Ex. J, at 1, ECF 13-3.)

C. Masterson-Carr's use of FMLA

In March 2017, Masterson-Carr received approval for and used continuous leave under FMLA from March 13, 2017, through March 26, 2017. (Ex. F, at DREXEL 00219-DREXEL 00220, ECF 13-2.) Masterson-Carr's request provoked no negative reaction. (Pl. Dep. 125:13-17.) Not only was there no hint that the absences caused others to believe Masterson-Carr was ineffective (id. at 63:1-5), but she also never received a negative performance evaluation during her entire time at the College (id. at 71:18-20). And Masterson-Carr was not alone in her use of FMLA: one of her direct reports took leave without being discharged despite Masterson-Carr's opinion, shared by Esposito, that the employee was a poor performer. (Id. at 194:18-196:13.)

Masterson-Carr later submitted a request for intermittent, rather than continuous, leave covering a period from March 13, 2017, through June 4, 2017. (Id. at 127:11-21.) Masterson-Carr later extended the terminal date of her intermittent leave to September 13, 2017. (Ex. P, DREXEL 00223-DREXEL 00229.) Significantly, Masterson-Carr testified that this extension garnered no disapproval from her superiors at the College. (Pl. Dep. 194:12-17.)

D. The Kukla investigation

On April 19, 2017, Masterson-Carr joined two subordinates—Moira McGoldrick and Ashley Kukla—at Thomas Jefferson Hospital to support another employee whose mother lay gravely ill. (Kukla Aff. ¶ 11, Ex. L, ECF 13-3; McGoldrick Aff. ¶ 8, Ex. M, ECF 13-3.) Afterward, Masterson-Carr, McGoldrick, and Kukla went to the Comcast Center for lunch. (Kukla Aff. ¶ 13; McGoldrick Aff. ¶ 11.) Over lunch, Masterson-Carr asked Kukla, "either what medicine did you take, or did you take your medicine today." (Pl. Dep. 101:9-11.) Masterson-Carr explained at her deposition that she asked the question "[b]ecause [Kukla's] behavior was off the wall at the hospital." (Id. at 99:22-24.) Importantly, Masterson-Carr was aware that Kukla suffered from anxiety and took medication to control it. (Kukla Aff. ¶¶ 6-7; Pl. Dep. 102:14-17.)

Kukla reported the incident to Esposito a week later, and Esposito informed Masterson-Carr about Kukla's complaint during their regularly scheduled meeting. (Kukla Aff. ¶ 16; Pl. Dep. 94:22-95:13; Investigative Report, Ex. O, at DREXEL 00129, ECF 13-4.) When Masterson-Carr learned about the complaint, she responded that "this is another situation that's going to get escalated to HR then I'm going to resign because [of my] reputation, I couldn't handle another." (Pl. Dep. 105:11-14.) She explained that the circumstances counseled resignation because "three different complaints in less than a year [means] I obviously wasn't the right fit."² (Id. )

The University's Office of Human Resources ("HR") launched an investigation into the complaint led by HR Business Partner Jennifer Gallagher. (Ex. O, at DREXEL 00129.) During her investigation, Gallagher interviewed Masterson-Carr, McGoldrick, and Kukla. (Id. at DREXEL 00129-DREXEL 00130.) Gallagher also gave Masterson-Carr specific instructions that she was not to communicate with anyone about the substance of the investigation. (Pl. Dep. 114:16-115:14.) That, however, did not deter Masterson-Carr from confronting Kukla to express her disappointment at the allegations because Masterson-Carr believed she and Kukla "had a better relationship than that." (Id. at 115:15-116:22.) Kukla responded that Masterson-Carr's comments over lunch struck a nerve because they suggested that Masterson-Carr believed Kukla "was crazy." (Kukla Aff. ¶ 19; Pl. Dep. 116:1-5.)

Despite being cautioned by Gallagher, Masterson-Carr concedes she questioned McGoldrick on two separate occasions to learn what she told HR. On May 8, 2017, Masterson-Carr asked McGoldrick what she intended to tell Gallagher at their meeting that day and communicated her expectation that McGoldrick would give her the details of what she discussed with Gallagher afterward. (Ex. O, at DREXEL 00135.) McGoldrick contacted Gallagher on May 24, 2017, to confirm that, after their previous meeting, Masterson-Carr demanded to know what McGoldrick had said. (Id. at DREXEL 00136.) Discomfited, McGoldrick told Masterson-Carr to direct her questions about the investigation to HR. (Id. ; McGoldrick Aff. ¶ 27.) Masterson-Carr remained undeterred and continued her efforts to pry from McGoldrick any hint about what she discussed with HR. (Ex. O, at DREXEL 00136.) When questioned at her deposition about McGoldrick's accusations, Masterson-Carr testified that she did not recall asking McGoldrick about her meeting with HR, but she "[was] sure it happened." (Pl. Dep. 124:4-7.)

On May 9, 2017, a day after the McGoldrick encounter, Masterson-Carr went out on another period of continuous FMLA leave. (Ex. P, at 2, ECF 13-3; Pl. Dep. 193:21-194:8.) On or about June 5, 2017, while Masterson-Carr was out on leave, Gallagher concluded her investigation and drafted a report summarizing her findings.³ Based on the evidence collected, Gallagher made the unequivocal recommendation that Masterson-Carr be terminated immediately. (Ex. O, at DREXEL 00138.) She offered several reasons:

• Masterson-Carr's interrogations of Kukla and McGoldrick about what they told HR "violated Drexel policies OED-1 and CP0-4 pertaining to retaliation" because Masterson-Carr's conduct "had the effect of intimidating" Kukla and McGoldrick and, thus, "interfering with HR's investigation" of Kukla's allegations.

• Masterson-Carr's

...