Muhammad v. Matrix Med. Network

1

HAJAR MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. MATRIX MEDICAL NETWORK, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 20-2244

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

September 27, 2021

MEMORANDUM

Schiller, J.

Hajar Muhammad worked as a nurse practitioner for Matrix Medical Network (“Matrix”) for a little less than a year. While working for Matrix, Muhammad experienced some medical issues that necessitated accommodations and a leave of absence from work, to which Matrix acceded. Muhammad was cleared to return to work in March of 2019. Prior to that return, Muhammad was removed from her position as an employee and moved into an independent contractor position. She claims that Matrix's conduct violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) and that Matrix failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. Presently before the Court is Matrix's motion for summary judgment. Because the Court concludes that Muhammad was not disabled at the relevant time, the Court will grant the motion. Moreover the Court will also grant summary judgment in favor of Matrix on Muhammad's workers' compensation retaliation claim.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Matrix offers care and health services to people in their homes and in their workplaces. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 1.) Matrix “uses approximately 3400 Nurse Practitioners and other health care providers to visit health plan members in their homes and nursing facilities nationwide.” (Id. ¶ 3.) Matrix has full and part time employees, as well as Flex Providers, who are independent contractors. (Id. ¶ 5.) Flex Providers, who must be properly credentialed, may set their own work schedules. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7, 9.)

Matrix hired Muhammad on June 4, 2018, as a Nurse Practitioner 2. (Id. ¶ 10.) In that position, she performed health risk assessments and screening procedures, and referred members to primary care physicians, as well as to disease management programs. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) Muhammad reported to Nita Heck, the Manager of Clinical Service for the Middle Atlantic, and Vicki Beal, Clinical Services Manager. (Id. ¶ 15.)

On November 29, 2018, Muhammad hurt her back when she slipped and fell while unloading her car. (Id. ¶ 16.) Her doctor diagnosed her with a sprain of the ligaments of her lumbar spine and scheduled a follow-up appointment for December 5, 2018. (Id. ¶ 17.) On December 3, 2018, Muhammad submitted a request for workers' compensation leave, which Matrix granted. (Id. ¶ 18.) On December 5, 2018, Muhammad's doctor prescribed her physical therapy and scheduled another follow-up appointment for December 10, 2018. (Id. ¶ 19.) On December 10, 2018, Muhammad's doctor restricted her from lifting more than ten pounds, squatting, climbing, reaching, or standing for more than two hours. (Id. ¶ 21.) On December 21, 2018, she visited the Rothman Institute, and she was released to return to work on modified duty. (Id. ¶ 22.) Specifically, she was not allowed to sit for longer than thirty minutes without breaks. (Id.) Muhammad returned to work on December 26, 2018. (Id. ¶ 23.)

On January 15, 2019, Muhammad submitted a leave of absence request to Matrix, seeking personal leave from January 30, 2019 through March 4, 2019, so she could undergo pelvic floor surgery. (Id. ¶ 24.) This request was granted, and Muhammad began her leave on January 30, 2019. (Id. ¶ 25.) On February 28, 2019, Muhammad forwarded a letter from her doctor stating that on March 12, 2019, Muhammad could return to work without restrictions. (Id. ¶ 27.) Accordingly, Matrix extended her leave through March 11, 2019. (Id. ¶ 28.)

On March 12, 2019, Matrix transferred Muhammad from full-time employee to Flex Provider. (Id. ¶ 37.) The story of Muhammad's transfer to a flex position is hotly disputed, though ultimately that dispute is not material. On March 3, 2019, Muhammad texted Beal about possibly returning as a Flex Provider as her back issues led her to question whether returning to work full time was a smart decision. (Id. ¶ 29.) Though Muhammad admits to discussing the flex position, she contends that she was never informed that accepting that position would make her an independent contractor. (Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Statement of Facts in Support of Her Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. [Pl.'s Statement of Facts] ¶ 29.) According to Matrix, Muhammad shortly thereafter accepted a flex position. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 32.) Muhammad denies that she accepted the flex position; rather, she contends that she merely discussed the position with Matrix's Clinical Program Manager. (See Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Facts ¶ 32; Pl.'s Statement of Facts ¶¶ 32, 34.) The record includes an email dated March 5, 2019 from Michelle O'Nale, who worked in human resources for Matrix, to Muhammad. According to this email, O'Nale stated that Muhammad had resigned from her full-time position to take a flex position, effective March 12, 2019. (Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. S [Mar. 5, 2019 O'Nale email].) Muhammad questions the authenticity of this email, asserting that it, “not only looks strange, but also Plaintiff testified that she never received or reviewed the email.” (Pl.'s Statement of Facts ¶¶ 32-33.)

On March 12, 2019, a human resources representative from Matrix emailed Muhammad, informing her that because Flex Providers were considered independent contractors, Muhammad was “no longer considered an employee of Matrix Medical Network” and she would be required to return a signing bonus she received when she was originally hired. (Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. X [Mar. 12, 2019 O'Nale email].) Muhammad responded that “[n]o one ever explained to me that going flex would force me to resign and also that I would have to pay back the bonus money. No one ever explained that I would no longer be an employee of Matrix by being flex. This all happened so fast which concerns me that there was a hidden agenda. I never formally resigned so I would like to continue as a full time employee. Please email back to confirm.” (Id.) Ultimately, Matrix did not require Muhammad to return her bonus. (Def.'s Undisputed Statement of Facts ¶ 39.)

According to Matrix, it needed credentialing paperwork from Muhammad so that she could begin working as a Flex Provider. (Id. ¶ 41.) Despite multiple attempts to obtain the necessary credentialing paperwork from Muhammad, she failed to complete or submit the paperwork. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 40, 42.) “Accordingly, Matrix Medical deemed Muhammad to have abandoned the Flex position, effective March 12, 2019.” (Id. ¶ 43.) Muhammad contests that her paperwork was deficient, claiming that the initial credentialing paperwork was sent to an email which she could no longer access. (Pl.'s Statement of Facts ¶ 40.)

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate when the admissible evidence fails to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). When the movant does not bear the burden of persuasion at trial, it may meet its burden on summary judgment by showing that the nonmoving party's evidence is insufficient to carry its burden of persuasion. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Thereafter, the nonmoving party demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact if it provides evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable finder of fact to find in its favor at trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In reviewing the record, “a court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all inferences in that party's favor.” Armbruster v. Unisys Corp., 32 F.3d 768, 777 (3d Cir. 1994). The court may not, however, make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence in considering motions for summary judgment. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000); see also Goodman v. Pa. Tpk. Comm'n, 293 F.3d 655, 665 (3d Cir. 2002).

III. DISCUSSION

According to Muhammad, Matrix failed to accommodate her disability, and “failed to meaningfully engage in the interactive process towards the development of reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff's disability.” (Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. [Pl.'s Mem.] at 2.) She claims that rather than work with her to accommodate her disability, Matrix wrongfully terminated her while on disability leave because she transferred from a fulltime position to a flex position, which rendered her an independent contractor without medical benefits or guaranteed hours. (Id.) Matrix denies these claims and asserts that Muhammad has failed to state a prima facie case for discrimination. Matrix also asserts that Muhammad failed to provide evidence of a necessary causal connection for her workers' compensation retaliation claim.

The Court will grant Matrix's motion for summary judgment because Muhammad was not disabled at the time of her termination. Moreover, prior to that time, she had been granted all of the accommodation requests she sought from Matrix. Finally, the Court agrees that Muhammad has failed to provide evidence of the necessary causal connection for her workers' compensation retaliation claim.

A. Was Muhammad Disabled Under the ADA?

The parties dispute whether Muhammad was disabled under the terms of the ADA. Matrix argues that Muhammad's medical troubles were a temporary condition that required treatment but that her medical condition was not a disability necessitating a reasonable accommodation. According to Matrix, “[a] short-term bladder problem that is fully resolved by surgery is an illness, not a disability.” (Def.'s Br. in Support of Its Mot. for Summ. J. [Def.'s Br.] at 8.) Muhammad claims that as a result of her pelvic floor surgery,...