Nnadozie v. Manorcare Health Servs., LLC

EMANUELLA NKEM NNADOZIE, Plaintiff, v. MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants.

Civil No.: BPG-15-391

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

March 15, 2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Emanuella Nkem Nnadozie ("Nnadozie," or "plaintiff") brings this employment discrimination action against defendants Manorcare Health Services, LLC, HCR Manor Care Services, Manorcare-Woodbridge Valley MD, LLC, Manorcare Health Services-Woodbridge Valley, and Heartland Employment Services ("HES" or "defendant"), alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, based on a series of events which resulted in her termination from her position as a registered nurse.¹ Currently pending before the court are: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from the District Court's Determination Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Plaintiff's Motion") (ECF No. 67); (2) Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration ("Defendant's Opposition") (ECF No. 69); and (3) Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Support of Her Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from the District Court's Determination Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Plaintiff'sReply") (ECF No. 70). The issues have been fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary. Loc. R. 105.6. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 67) is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this court considers the facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007). In this case, plaintiff is asking this court to reconsider its finding of summary judgment in favor of defendants (ECF No. 44). Defendants, however, were the parties who originally moved for summary judgment. (ECF No. 32). Accordingly, plaintiff is the nonmoving party, so all facts will be considered and all reasonable inferences will be drawn in the light most favorable to plaintiff.

Plaintiff was hired on May 15, 2013, as a Night Shift Registered Nurse ("RN") Supervisor by Heartland Employment Services ("HES" or "defendant") at the Woodbridge Facility. (ECF No. 32-1 at 13). Manorcare-Woodbridge Valley MD, LLC, owned the Woodbridge Facility and leased employees from HES, including plaintiff. (ECF No. 32-1 at 50). Plaintiff previously worked as a R.N. Supervisor at Future Care Health Care Corporation and as an Assistant Director of Nursing at Genesis Health Care Corporation ("Genesis"). (ECF No. 32-1 at 13). Plaintiff, a black female, was born in Sierra Leone and lived in Nigeria and France before moving to the United States in 1996 at age 19. Id.

At the Woodbridge Facility, plaintiff was directly supervised by the Administrative Director of Nursing Services ("DON"). (ECF No. 69 at 10). Prior to October of 2013, this role belonged to Alisa Davis, a black female. Id. In October 2013, however, Davis left, and the role was filled by Michelle Jambora, a Filipino female, who acted as the interim DON. Id. On October 1, 2013, Jambora called the Woodbridge Facility three times during the night shift.(ECF No. 69 at 11). Plaintiff alleges that, at first, no one responded when she answered the phone. (ECF No. 39 at 2). On the third time, she alleged that Jambora "screamed at [plaintiff] and threatened her job . . . accused [plaintiff] of not doing her job . . . questioned whether [plaintiff] could be a supervisor at all and accused her of inability [sic] manage her employees." Id. Plaintiff further stated that the call "left [plaintiff] in tears, feeling like she had incurred a physical attack." Id. That day, plaintiff wrote a letter to Elizabeth Kaczor, the Vice President of Human Resources ("HR"), and expressed her concerns with the way Jambora spoke to her. (ECF No. 69 at 11).

Over the subsequent few weeks, plaintiff alleged that Jambora reassigned her from being a House Supervisor to a Floor Nurse seven to ten times, which she described as "essentially a demotion," and gave her additional duties. (ECF No. 39 at 3-4). Plaintiff further alleged that no other nurse was assigned additional or floor work duties. Id. Plaintiff then spoke with HR Representative Karen Boxen and Jambora about the October 1, 2013 phone call and plaintiff's floor work assignments.² (ECF No. 39 at 5). Plaintiff also spoke with Staci Froelich, the Administrator of the Woodbridge Facility, on October 23, 2013, regarding Jambora's conduct. (ECF No. 39 at 5). Plaintiff alleges that, during this meeting, she asserted her belief that Jambora would treat her more fairly if she were not black. Id.

Plaintiff was injured at work on October 30, 2013 and was out on medical leave until December 30, 2013. (ECF No. 69 at 12). Plaintiff alleges that, upon her return on December 30, 2013, she was told by Jambora that "she could choose between her old position but working additional time, or working as a floor nurse." (ECF No. 39 at 5). Plaintiff did not accept either, however, as she was still recovering from her injury, and returned to work on limited duty. (ECFNo. 37-1 at 6). Plaintiff was primarily responsible for reviewing lab results and notifying patients and family members of abnormal results. (ECF No. 69 at 12). On December 30, plaintiff also met with Regional HR Director John Kolesar and Froelich to discuss her concerns that "Jambora was discriminating against her and continuing to harass her, and that nothing had been done about it." (ECF No. 39 at 5).

On January 13, 2014, plaintiff documented in resident J.B.'s progress notes that she had informed the responsible party ("RP") of J.B. (her daughter, C.B.) that J.B. had abnormal lab results. (ECF No. 69 at 12). Earlier that day, however, the morning staff was informed that C.B. had passed away over the weekend. Id. Another RN Supervisor, Cordilia Agbam, noticed this discrepancy and "became concerned that resident J.B.'s lab result had not been provided to the correct person." Id. Agbam reported this issue to Jambora. Id. On January 15, 2014, plaintiff was called into a meeting and asked about the progress note. (ECF No. 39 at 12). Plaintiff stated that she called and spoke with someone who claimed to be J.B.'s RP. Id. Plaintiff was then suspended without pay pending an investigation of the incident. Id.

During the investigation, Agbam reviewed plaintiff's other January 13, 2014 notes and discovered that plaintiff documented that she informed resident E.W. of his lab results and called his RP, although no one answered. (ECF No. 69 at 13). E.W. informed Agbam, however, that he had never received his lab results or spoken with plaintiff, and defendant noted that E.W. was his own RP. Id. Agbam again reported this issue. Id. Defendant also discovered during the investigation that, while plaintiff was on suspension, plaintiff called C.B.'s number to conduct her own investigation into the identity of the person who answered the phone. (ECF No. 69 at 14 (citing ECF No. 32-4 at 114)).

As a result of defendant's investigation, defendant subsequently decided to terminate plaintiff's employment and informed plaintiff of such during a meeting on February 19, 2014. (ECF No. 69 at 15). Defendant relied on its work rule A-28, an "all-encompassing" rule that required employees to "[c]onduct yourself in other major instances of conduct not specifically listed." Id. Specifically, defendant stated that, regarding resident J.B., plaintiff "failed to properly review the progress notes" and "failed to take appropriate steps to confirm the identity of the person answering the phone." (ECF No. 69 at 14). As to resident E.W., defendant "weighed the evidence and found E.W. more believable than [plaintiff.]" Id. Finally, defendant found that it was "unprofessional and insensitive" for plaintiff to call C.B.'s phone number "for her personal purposes" during her suspension. (ECF No. 69 at 15). Subsequent to her termination, plaintiff's position was filled with a white female. (ECF No. 67-1 at 8).

Plaintiff alleges that this investigation was "disingenuous" and began merely two weeks after her December 30, 2013 complaint that Jambora was discriminating against her and harassing her. (ECF No. 67-1 at 7). Plaintiff further alleges that, during December of 2013, managers at the Woodbridge Facility, including Administrator Froelich, learned that she was engaged in litigation against her previous employer, Genesis.³ Id. On April 14, 2014 plaintiff initiated charges against defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights ("MCCR") alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race and national origin and retaliated against afterprotesting such activity. (ECF No. 32-1 at 9-10). Plaintiff filed the instant case before this court on February 10, 2015. (ECF No. 1).

In her Amended Complaint, plaintiff asserts three counts: (1) "unlawful suspension and termination of plaintiff Nnadozie, on account of race and national origin discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981"; (2) "retaliatory alteration of Nnadozie's working conditions, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and 42 U.S.C. § 1981"; and (3) "hostile work environment, inflicted upon plaintiff Nnadozie, on account of her race and national origin, and in retaliation for protected activity, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981." (ECF No. 8 at 8). Specifically, in her first count, plaintiff alleges she was suspended without pay and ultimately terminated based on her race and national origin as well as her litigation against her prior employer, Genesis, and her internal discrimination complaints. Id. In her second count, plaintiff also alleges that defendant altered her working conditions by assigning her substantial additional duties in retaliation for her litigation against...