Neal v. Genesis Props. of Del., Ltd.

870 F.Supp.2d 369

Robin NEAL, Plaintiff,

v.GENESIS PROPERTIES OF DELAWARE, LTD. PARTNERSHIP, L.P., Defendant.

Civ. No. 11–17–SLR.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

June 27, 2012.

Robin Neal, Wilmington, DE, pro se.

Joseph H. Huston, Jr., Esquire, Larry J. Rappoport, Esquire, and Lisa M. Scidurlo, Esquire of Stevens & Lee, Wilmington, DE, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Robin Neal (“plaintiff”) filed this pro se action against defendant Genesis Properties of Delaware LTD. Partnership, L.P. (“Genesis” or “defendant”), her former employer, on January 6, 2011. (D.I. 2 at 1) Plaintiff alleges religiously-based employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., (“Title VII”). As discussed infra p. 8, it is unclear the exact basis on which plaintiff proceeds. The court therefore addresses plaintiff's complaint under three different Title VII analyses: (1) hostile work environment; (2) retaliation; and (3) disparate treatment. The court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Currently before the court is defendant's motion for summary judgment. (D.I. 24) For the following reasons, defendant's motion is granted.

II. BACKGROUND¹

In October of 1999, plaintiff began working as a housekeeper at Hillside, a long-term care facility owned by defendant, Genesis, and located in Wilmington, Delaware. (D.I. 25 at dep. 11) After working there several years, plaintiff was promoted to a Certified Nurse's Assistant (“CNA”). ( Id.) In June of 2007, plaintiff received another promotion to the position of Medical Records Clerk/Supply Coordinator by Hillside Administrator Frank Reimbold (“Reimbold”). ( Id. at Ex. Neal–16 at 5)

In January of 2008, plaintiff began seeking information about converting to Islam. ( Id. at dep. 14) In March of that year, plaintiff underwent Shahadah ² and completed her conversion to Islam. ( Id.) After converting, plaintiff began wearing a nikabe (face covering), a khimar (headdress), and an over-garment whenever she left her home, including while working at Hillside. ( Id. at dep. 16–17)

A. Plaintiff's Interactions with Scheib

In early August 2008, plaintiffs supervisor, the Hillside Director of Nursing (“DON”), Marie Scheib (“Scheib”), repeatedly made comments to plaintiff about her religious clothing. ( Id. at dep. 33, 36, 38) The first incident occurred when plaintiff was delivering supplies to nurses on the fourth floor. ( Id. at dep. 33) As plaintiff exited the elevator, Scheib confronted her saying: “Oh, look at Mother Teresa. Where did you get that bandanna from?” ( Id.) Plaintiff thought Scheib was referring to her khimar but, despite her anger, said nothing and walked away. ( Id. at dep. 34–35)

Several days later, while working on the third floor, Scheib again made a comment about plaintiff's khimar, asking her where she got her do-rag from. ( Id. at dep. 36)

Lastly, a few days after the second incident, as Scheib walked by plaintiff, she said: “Oh, I wish I had a habit so I could run and hide.” ( Id. at dep. 38) Plaintiff did not understand what Scheib was talking about, but her coworkers told her that a “habit” was a name for nun's clothing. ( Id.)

Unrelated to plaintiff's new manner of dressing, but around the time Scheib made the foregoing comments, Reimbold and Scheib met with plaintiff about her lackluster work performance. ( Id. at dep. 41) During the meeting, plaintiff alleges that Scheib raised her voice and yelled at her “like [she] was one of her children.” ( Id.) Plaintiff further alleges that Reimbold made no effort to calm Scheib or to prevent her from raising her voice to plaintiff. ( Id. at dep. 42)

B. Plaintiff's Intra–Company Complaint

Unhappy with the way Scheib was treating her, plaintiff spoke with several members of the Hillside staff and Genesis management in mid-August 2008. ( Id. at dep. 50–63) Plaintiff first approached a Hillside DON, Rhonda Laux (“Laux”). ( Id. at dep. 40) Plaintiff told Laux about Scheib's comments and asked if she could arrange for plaintiff to speak with someone in management. ( Id.) Specifically, plaintiff wished to speak with Ida Klinger (“Klinger”), whom she already knew. ( Id. at dep. 40–41) Shortly thereafter, Klinger visited Hillside and plaintiff told her about Scheib's comments. ( Id. at dep. 51) Klinger told plaintiff that she would relay her complaint to Betty Scott (“Scott”), another Genesis corporate employee, and that plaintiff could speak with Scott on her next visit to Hillside. ( Id. at dep. 52)

On August 14, Scott, along with several other corporate employees, visited Hillside to meet with the Hillside managers about various topics. ( Id. at dep. 52–54) During this visit, plaintiff met with Scott, Reimbold, and another Genesis corporate manager, Bob Lanza, to whom plaintiff reported Scheib's behavior. ( Id. at dep. 54, 58) Scott asked plaintiff to write a brief statement describing these encounters so that Scott could forward the statement to the human resources department (“HR”). ( Id. at dep. 58) After receiving plaintiff's written statement, Scott forwarded it to Pam Huenke (“Huenke”) in HR. ( Id. at Ex. Neal–1; Id. at Ex. Neal–2)

On August 18, 2008, Huenke sent plaintiff an email to set up a meeting two days later. ( Id. at Ex. Neal–2) On August 20, 2008, Huenke met with plaintiff in plaintiff's office where they discussed Scheib's behavior. ( Id. at dep. 60–61) Two days after that meeting, Huenke sent plaintiff another email following up on their meeting. ( Id. at Ex. Neal–3) In this second email, Huenke told plaintiff that Reimbold had spoken with Scheib about her behavior and instructed plaintiff to contact her (Huenke) immediately if Scheib continued to make inappropriate comments to her. ( Id.) After this series of meetings and discussions, Scheib ceased making comments to plaintiff about her clothing and plaintiff did not lodge any further complaints. ( Id. at dep. 65)

C. Plaintiff's Post–Complaint Grievances

Sometime after these mid-August 2008 meetings, plaintiff complains that Scheib “badgered” her about work related activities on two occasions. ( Id. at dep. 65) On one occasion, Scheib asked plaintiff to report to the second floor to handle some paperwork. ( Id. at dep. 63) Twenty minutes later, Scheib again requested that plaintiff report to the second floor. ( Id.) Once plaintiff arrived on the second floor, she found that Scheib had left her a sticky note detailing the work that she needed done. ( Id.) After plaintiff had been working on that project for half an hour, Scheib again called plaintiff to give her instructions about what to do when she was finishedwith her current task. ( Id.) Lastly, Scheib again paged plaintiff shortly after their third communication. ( Id. at dep. 64) Plaintiff took this series of interactions to be disrespectful because plaintiff felt that she was capable of doing her job. ( Id. at dep. 65) Plaintiff also felt that Scheib was being a pest to try and get a rise out of plaintiff. ( Id. at dep. 65–66)

On one other occasion, plaintiff complains Scheib again badgered her about dealing with intravenous (“IV”) equipment at Hillside. ( Id. at dep. 64) Plaintiff felt that this was unnecessary because the IV equipment in question was the responsibility of the Hillside nursing staff and not the plaintiff. ( Id.)

D. Plaintiff's Attendance Problems

In addition to her problems with Scheib, plaintiff also had numerous attendance related issues. ( See generally Id. at dep. 81–102; Id. at Ex. Neal–4) Beginning in July, 2008 and continuing through November, 2008, plaintiff received six “corrective action notices” (“notices”). ( Id. at Ex. Neal–5, 7, 8, 9) Plaintiff received the first notice on July 17 because she did not follow the proper protocol when calling out sick. ( Id. at Ex. Neal–9) At this time, plaintiff was reminded of Hillside's remedial policies regarding attendance problems and was directed to consult the employee handbook in order to avoid future problems. ( Id.;Id. at Ex. Neal–10) On October 24, plaintiff received another notice for calling out sick on August 1 and September 17, and for leaving early on September 10, and September 16. ( Id. at Ex. Neal–8) About a month later, on November 14, plaintiff received another notice for arriving late to work on November 3, 5, and 7. ( Id. at Ex. Neal–7) Lastly, on November 24, Reimbold issued plaintiff three notices for arriving late on the 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, and the 24 of that month. ( Id. at Ex. Neal–5) Plaintiff signed the notices, and Reimbold warned plaintiff that she could be fired for her repeated violations of Hillside's attendance policy. ( Id. at dep. 91–92) However, beyond these written and verbal warnings, plaintiff never received any kind of disciplinary action for her attendance problems. ( Id. at dep. 105) Despite her well documented attendance problems, plaintiff felt that the three November 24 notices were given to her as retaliation for reporting Scheib. ( Id. at dep. 89; Id. at Ex. Neal–4)

E. Plaintiff's Leave of Absence and Complaint

Several months later, on January 1, 2009, plaintiff applied for Family Medical Leave so that she could take care of her teenage daughter who had recently given birth. ( See generally Id. at dep. 111–116; Id. at Ex. Neal–11) Plaintiff's request was granted and she went on leave February 9, 2009 with an expected return date of May 6, 2009. ( Id. at dep. 116) It was during this leave of absence that, on March 25, 2009, plaintiff filed charges with the Delaware Department of Labor (“DDL”). ( Id. at dep. 118–119; Id. at Ex. Neal–12) In the DDL complaint, plaintiff alleged both discrimination based upon her religion and a separate retaliation claim. ( Id. at Ex. Neal–12) Plaintiff never returned from her leave of absence and her employment at Hillside was terminated on May 21, 2009.³ ( Id. at dep. 140; Id. at Ex. Neal–14)

On...