Nickey v. UPMC Pinnacle

1

RAQUEL NICKEY, Plaintiff, v. UPMC PINNACLE d/b/a UPMC PINNACLE CARLISLE, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:20-CV-02206

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

August 5, 2022

WILSON, J.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff Raquel Nickey (“Nickey”) brings the above-captioned civil rights action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C 12101 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 P.S. 951 against Defendant UPMC Pinnacle d/b/a UPMC Pinnacle Carlisle (“UPMC”).^[1] (Doc. 1, at 1). In her complaint, Nickey claims that UPMC terminated her employment, failed to accommodate her, and retaliated against her due to her disability related to an annular tear and bulging disc in her spine. (Doc. 1, at 7-10).

Pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by UPMC. (Doc. 21). UPMC asserts that it accommodated Nickey's requests, that Nickey's termination was unrelated to her disability, and that her retaliation claim must fail. (Doc. 22, at 10, 12, 13). Nickey contends that UPMC failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for her disabilities related to her work-related injury as it did not put forth a good faith effort in accommodating her part-time work schedule and that her desired accommodations were reasonable. (Doc. 25, at 17-21). Further, Nickey argues that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether UPMC terminated her due to her disabilities related to her work-related injury, as she was a qualified individual because her reduced hours did not impact her department. (Doc. 25, at 21). Finally, Nickey states that a genuine issue of material facts exists as to whether she suffered an adverse employment action because of her request for a reasonable accommodation and that the timing of her termination and request to return to work suggests that her termination was “unduly suggestive of retaliation.” (Doc. 25, at 24-26). For the reasons stated herein, it is recommended that UPMC's motion for summary judgment be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (Doc 21).

I. Background and Procedural History

This factual background is taken from UPMC's statement of material facts and accompanying exhibits and Nickey's counter statement of undisputed material facts and exhibits. (Doc. 21-1; Doc. 25-2). Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1, Nickey has provided her response to UPMC's statement of facts and has provided accompanying exhibits. (Doc. 25-2). Where Nickey disputes facts and supports those disputes in the record, as required by Local Rule 56.1, those disputes are noted. The Court accepts as true all undisputed material facts supported by the record. Where the record evinces a disputed fact, the Court will take notice. In addition, the facts have been taken in the light most favorable to Nickey as the non-moving party, with all reasonable inferences drawn in her favor.

On June 15, 2016, Nickey sustained a back injury while working as a mammography technologist. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 1; Doc. 21-2, at 9, 10; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 1). Nickey testified that she was performing a mammography on a patient when the patient's legs gave out. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 2; Doc. 21-2, at 10-11, Doc. 25-2, ¶ 2). Nickey tried to catch the patient but they both fell back into the patient's wheelchair. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 2; Doc. 21-2, at 10-11; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 2). Nickey believed she sprained a muscle at the time. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 3; Doc. 21-2, at 12; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 3). Nickey reported the work-related injury to her employer the next day. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 4; Doc. 21-2, at 13; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 4). Nickey reported the matter to her supervisor, Loretta Rosko (“Rosko”). (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 5; Doc. 21-2, at 14; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 5). The employer provided Nickey with a work injury packet and sent her to the medical provider, AllBetterCare. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 6; Doc. 21-2, at 15, 3233; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 6). Nickey returned to work with restrictions working approximately three days a week.^[2] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 7; Doc. 21-2, at 16). Nickey also consulted an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. David Frank. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 8; Doc. 21-2, at 17; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 8). The employer sent Nickey to an independent medical exam and offered her a return to work on a full-time basis on February 16, 2017.^[3](Doc. 21-1, ¶ 9; Doc. 21-2, at 33).

Nickey declined the offer after consulting with her orthopedic surgeon and she continued to work approximately three days per week.^[4] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 10; Doc. 21-2, at 19). Nickey had now been diagnosed with an annular tear of the lumbar spine.^[5] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 11; Doc. 21-2, at 20; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 11). Nickey continued to work on a reduced work schedule until the summer of 2018. (Doc. 1, at 3; Doc 21-1, ¶ 12; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 12). By now the hospital had been acquired by UPMC. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 13; Doc. 21-2, at 26; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 13). In August of 2018, Nickey testified that she had a discussion with Tenna Snyder, (“Snyder”), in which she informed Snyder that she was having difficulty concentrating, she was unable to sleep, and she was tired.^[6] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 14; Doc. 21-2, at 21-23). Snyder testified that she had a discussion with Nickey because Rosko had asked Snyder about the duration of Nickey's restrictions.^[7] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 15; Doc. 21-2, at 55, 56; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 15). Nickey told Snyder that her issues with concentration were caused by a condition called Hashimoto's disease. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 16; Doc. 21-2, at 23; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 16). Hashimoto's is an autoimmune disease and is unrelated to Nickey's 2016 injury. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 17; Doc. 21-2, at 23; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 17). Nickey has had the disease since the 1990s. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 18; Doc. 21-2, at 24; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 18). As for Nickey's work-related annular tear, Nickey stated that the injury was permanent. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 19; Doc. 21-2, at 25; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 19). Nickey entered into a Worker's Compensation Compromise and Release for which she received $55,000. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 20; Doc. 21-2, at 83-86; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 20). Nickey agreed that she was not due any further compensation based on her worker's comp injury in March 2018.^[8] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 21; Doc. 21-2, at 83-86). When UPMC acquired the facility where Nickey worked UPMC offered her full-time employment.^[9] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 22; Doc. 21-2, at 27, 36-37). Nickey was not able to perform fulltime employment but accepted the position nonetheless.^[10] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 23; Doc. 21-2, at 29, 3941). Returning to the August 2018, discussion between Snyder and Nickey, Snyder testified that she was concerned for patient safety when she learned of Nickey's inability to concentrate. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 24; Doc. 21-2, at 60-61; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 24). During deposition, Nickey stated that she could not recall, did not understand, misinterpreted, or misunderstood information presented and requested that a question be repeated on 71 occasions.^[11] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 25; Doc. 21-2, at 114-127). She placed Nickey on a personal leave of absence, in accordance with the Reasonable Accommodation policy, and asked Nickey to provide a certification of a health care provider for personal leave.^[12] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 26). When the document was returned it noted that Nickey could work only two days a week.^[13](Doc. 21-1, ¶ 27). The health care provider filled out a form listing the duration of Nickey's restrictions from winter 2017, to present, indicating that Nickey's restrictions ended the day her doctor filled out the form.^[14] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 28; Doc. 21-2, at 57). The form was prepared by Dr. Wellmon. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 29; Doc. 21-2, at 58; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 29). Snyder contacted Nickey to tell her the leave form was deficient. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 30; Doc. 25-2, at ¶ 30). Snyder provided Nickey with a letter for Dr. Wellmon dated August 21, 2018.^[15] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 30; Doc. 21-2, at 68-71). The letter requested information on whether Nickey could perform the essential functions of her job and the duration of any restrictions. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 31; Doc. 21-2, at 68-71; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 31). Dr. Wellmon never responded to the letter.^[16](Doc. 21-1, ¶ 31; Doc. 21-2, at 75-76). On September 25, 2018, Snyder wrote to Nickey explaining that she had not received a response to her inquiries and she needed the information to substantiate Nickey's leave of absence.^[17] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 32; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 32). The letter to Nickey also explained that the previous medical certification form lacked the correct dates. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 33; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 33). Snyder requested the new medical certification be returned by October 3, 2018. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 34; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 34). Human Resources received an unsigned medical certification form from Nickey dated September 27, 2018.^[18] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 35; Doc. 212, at 73-74). On October 9, 2018, Snyder sent Nickey yet another letter explaining that she had not received the documents requested. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 36; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 36). The letter explained that the documents were needed to avoid termination. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 37; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 37). It again explained that the first medical certification only showed a need for accommodation through August 16, 2018, and the dates would need to be corrected. (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 38; Doc. 252, ¶ 38). Snyder requested a completed essential functions form and medical certification by October 17, 2018, to avoid termination.^[19] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 39; Doc. 25-2, ¶ 39). Dr. Wellmon faxed the new form to Snyder on October 17, 2018. (Doc. 25-2, ¶ 40; Doc. 25-3, at 146). The form stated that Dr. Wellmon was not the treating physician.^[20] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 41; Doc. 25-3, at 146). The document indicated that Dr. Clawson was the treating physician.^[21] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 42; Doc. 25-3, at 146). Dr. Clawson sent a record of Nickey's treatment that did not clarify the dates of Nickey's inability to perform her job.^[22] (Doc. 21-1, ¶ 43). Nickey received another letter from Snyder...