Moore v. CVS RX Servs., Inc.

142 F.Supp.3d 321

Nicole Lee Moore, Plaintiff,

v.CVS Rx Services, Inc., Defendant.

No. 4:14–cv–01318

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed October 30, 2015

W. Charles Sipio, Wayne A. Ely, Kolman Ely, P.C., Penndel, PA, for Plaintiff.

Barbara V.G. Parker, Fedwards Wildman Palmer LLP, Boston, MA, Maria Greco Danaher, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge

This decision evaluates Defendant CVS Rx Services, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff and former employee Nicole L. Moore's lawsuit, filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. Because there are no genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in full.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Employment with Defendant

Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a "picker" in its Chemung Distribution Center in Waverly, New York in June 2011. ECF No. 24 at 2; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 2. Defendant's official position summary for the "picker" job describes the role as requiring "frequent-medium heavy lifting heavy lifting requirement of 1–20 lbs., 34–66% of time" as well as "[o]ccasional very heavy lifting requirement of up to 75 lbs, 0–33% of time." ECF No. 24 Ex. 2 at 1. "Other physical activities include constant bending/reaching/stooping, (67–100%)" and "[c]onstant walking/standing climbing." Id. That same document lists the following tasks as "essential functions" of the picker job: "using totes or cardboard boxes, proceed down aisle to select and remove merchandise from shelf"; "pack merchandise into totes"; "snap cover on completed tote"; and "push onto conveyor, among other tasks." Id.

Plaintiff's testimony corroborated this job description. When asked to estimate the number of times a day she would have to climb shelves to select products, she responded "too many to count." ECF No. 33 at 7. Plaintiff further confirmed that she would stock and lift her own totes, which weighed approximately ten pounds each after she distributed the weight among several bags. Id. Plaintiff would repeat this process approximately once every hour to an hour and a half. Id.

B. Plaintiff's First Leave

During her pregnancy in early 2012, Plaintiff suffered from round ligament syndrome (a condition in which the muscles in the stomach have difficulty expanding), a rib that stuck out too far, and gallstones. ECF No. 24 at 5; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 5. Plaintiff's testimony as to the effect of these medical conditions, particularly round ligament syndrome, was that they "made [her] muscles feel like they were being pulled in every direction. When [she]'d lift over [her] head or stretch or climb, it affected it more so." ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 5.

As Plaintiff testified about her physical condition at the time, "it made it so I couldn't climb. I couldn't lift above my head. I couldn't perform my job the way I wanted to perform it." ECF No. 33 at 7. Further, in a healthcare provider certification form dated March 6, 2012, Dr. Richard Lubell, Plaintiff's OB/GYN, indicated that although Plaintiff could perform certain types of work, she could not do her job. ECF No. 24 Ex. 2 at 63 (stating that Plaintiff "can't lift over head and no climbing"). Dr. Lubell wrote that Plaintiff "was first unable to work due to the serious health condition(s)" starting February 13, 2012 but could "return to work at his or her normal schedule" on March 13, 2012. Id.

Plaintiff testified that some products at Defendant's facility were lighter than others. ECF No. 33 at 33. However, when asked whether "there [was] any product that [she] could have picked at that time without lifting, bending, [or] climbing," Plaintiff responded, "No." Id. Plaintiff admitted that she "could not lift over her head and could not climb at that time." ECF No. 24 at 7; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 7.

Plaintiff's first accommodation request came after Dr. Lubell completed a form on her behalf on February 19, 2012, advising that she be placed on bedrest through February 20, 2012.¹ ECF No. 24 Ex. 2 at 41; ECF No. 24 at 6; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 6. Plaintiff gave that note to Defendant's Chemung Human Resources Department on February 20, 2012. ECF No 24 at 6; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 6. Plaintiff was told that accommodation via transfer to another position was not possible because "picking"—the job to which she was currently assigned—"was light duty." ECF No. 33 at 33; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 6. Plaintiff claims that the Human Resources Department went on to explain that because she was already employed in a light duty capacity, temporary leave was the only feasible accommodation, and she would need to go home and file for that leave or would likely face termination. ECF No. 24 at 6; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 6. Defendant's Human Resources Department gave Plaintiff the number to call to request leave, which Plaintiff called later that day. ECF No. 24 at 6; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 6.

As such, on February 20, 2012, Plaintiff requested her first leave of absence from Defendant's Leave of Absence Department for the period dating from February 10, 2012 through February 28, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 6; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 6. On March 9, 2012, Defendant advised Plaintiff that it had not received adequate documentation supporting her leave. ECF No. 24 at 6; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 6. Then, on March 13, 2012, Plaintiff's OB/GYN faxed a healthcare provider certification for leave form dated March 6, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 6; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 6. Defendant thereafter approved Plaintiff's initial leave request as well as her first request for an extension through April 16, 2012.² ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 7.

In response to an updated letter from Plaintiff's doctor, Defendant subsequently extended her leave period a second time, then to conclude on May 23, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 7; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 7. Defendant thereafter extended Plaintiff's leave to June 22, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 7; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 7. After that, Defendant again extended Plaintiff's leave, this time stretching it through August 2, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 7; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 7. After a bout with persistent back pain, Plaintiff requested another leave extension, which Defendant approved through August 12, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 8; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 8. All told, Defendant extended Plaintiff's first leave period at least five times.

Plaintiff testified that she received short-term disability payments while on leave. ECF No. 33 at 13. Two of Plaintiff's 2012 W–2 forms confirm her receipt of short-term disability payments. Both forms indicate that they account for "third-party sick pay" allotted to Plaintiff in 2012. ECF No. 33 at 84–85. One of the forms accounts for "wages, tips, other comp." that totaled $684.96, ECF No. 33 at 84, while the second accounts for similar payments that totaled $2,318.80. ECF No. 33 at 85. Plaintiff testified that she received those payments during her first leave in 2012 but not during her second leave, which the Court details next. ECF No. 33 at 13.

C. Plaintiff's Second Leave

Shortly after returning to work on August 13, 2012, Plaintiff began to suffer from postpartum depression. ECF No. 24 at 8; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 8. On September 24, 2012, Plaintiff requested intermittent personal leave from Defendant's Leave of Absence Department but was advised that Defendant did not offer intermittent personal leave. ECF No. 24 at 9; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 9. Accordingly, Defendant's Leave of Absence Department told Plaintiff that she could choose between medical leave or family bonding leave, and Plaintiff chose family bonding leave. ECF No. 24 at 9; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 9. On September 25, 2012, Defendant approved a continuous leave of absence for baby bonding for Plaintiff from September 24, 2012 through September 30, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 9; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 9. Subsequent extensions of Plaintiff's leave by Defendant are detailed in the numbered list as follows:

1. On October 2, 2012, Defendant approved Plaintiff's request to extend her leave to October 2, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 9; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 9.

2. On October 3, 2012, Defendant approved a subsequent request by Plaintiff to extend her leave to October 7, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 9; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 9.

3. On October 11, 2012, Defendant approved a subsequent request by Plaintiff to extend her leave to October 14, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 9; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 9.

4. On October 18, 2012, Defendant approved a subsequent request by Plaintiff to extend her leave to October 21, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 10; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 9.

5. On October 24, 2012, Defendant approved a subsequent request by Plaintiff to extend her leave to October 24, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 10; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 9.

6. On October 26, 2012, Defendant approved a subsequent request by Plaintiff to extend her leave to October 29, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 10; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 9.

7. On October 31, 2012, Defendant approved a subsequent request by Plaintiff to extend her leave to October 31, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 10; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 10.

8. On November 2, 2012, Defendant approved a subsequent request by Plaintiff to extend her leave to November 4, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 10; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 10.

9. On November 6, 2012, Defendant approved a subsequent request by Plaintiff to extend her leave to November 6, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 10; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 10.

10. On November 8, 2012, Defendant approved a subsequent request by Plaintiff to extend her leave to November 7, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 11; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 10.

11. On November 10, 2012, Defendant approved a subsequent request by Plaintiff to extend her leave to November 12, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 11; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 10.

12. On November 12, 2012, Defendant approved a subsequent request by Plaintiff to extend her leave to November 13, 2012. ECF No. 24 at 11; ECF No. 30 Ex. 1 at 10.

13. On November 16, 2012, Defendant approved a subsequent request by Plaintiff to extend her leave to November 18, 2012.

...