Rim v. Lab. Mgmt. Consultants, Inc.

THAO RIM, Plaintiff, v. LABORATORY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 3:18-cv-00911

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

November 12, 2019

Judge Aleta A. Trauger

MEMORANDUM

Before the court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 26) filed by defendant Laboratory Management Consultants, Inc. ("LMC"), seeking dismissal of plaintiff Thao Rim's claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.

I. MATERIAL FACTS¹ and PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant LMC is a small business engaged in providing "installation, inspection, accreditation, and oversight services" for laboratories. (Compl., Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 22, 23.) It is owned by Eddie Davidson. LMC's headquarters are in Hazard, Kentucky ("Hazard Office"), but it operates a small office, formerly a house, in Madison, Tennessee ("Nashville Office"). Davidson also owns other companies, including MD Analysis, one of LMC's clients. Davidson and LMC employees Angela Koontz (Office Manager), Lori Pigman (Assistant), Brad Howard (Technical Consultant), and John Adkins (Technical Consultant) worked primarily out of the Hazard Office.

Rim was hired by LMC on October 16, 2017 as a Certifying Scientist to work from the Nashville Office. Only three other people besides Rim worked primarily out of the Nashville Office while Rim was there: Charles Champion, Michael Twilbeck, and, for a short period of time, Doretha Hammonds.² As a Certifying Scientist, Rim's job was to review data obtained from a client laboratory and to certify that the specimen analyzed, whether blood or urine, tested positive or negative for a specific drug or high or low for a specific substance. In this position, Rim was expected to produce accurate patient data and lab results.

Rim informed LMC that she was pregnant by sending an email "somewhere probably the end of October" 2017, shortly after she was hired. (Rim Dep. 78-79.) Rim never heard anyone at LMC make negative comments about her pregnancy. (Rim Dep. 81.) Koontz, in fact, congratulated her. (Id.; see also Koontz Dep., Doc. No. 26-3, at 119.)

The plaintiff testified that, when she was hired, Davidson told her that she would be permitted to work remotely and that she would not be required to come into the office during specific hours. (Rim Dep., Doc. No. 26-1, at 11.) She also alleges that Davidson told her that she would be traveling much of the time. (Rim Dep. 13.) According to Rim, Davidson told her she would be travelling to visit the clients she was assigned, learn their equipment and instruments, and facilitate in consulting and trouble-shooting when issues emerged. (Rim Dep. 13.) Davidson, on the other hand, testified that he did not expect Rim to travel, because she "did not have the educational requirements or experience to go out and deal with client[s] in the field." (Davidson Dep., Doc. No. 26-2, at 153.) It is undisputed that Rim's office mates, Twilbeck and Champion, traveled a lot for work and that Rim did not. She traveled to the Hazard Office once to interview for the job and a second time "a few months after she was hired" for training on a particular instrument. (Koontz Dep., Doc. No. 26-3, at 61;³ Rim Dep. 45.)

LMC agrees that, during the first several months of the plaintiff's employment, all employees were permitted to work a flexible work schedule. (Doc. No. 26-3, at 68.) On January 5, 2018, Rim received an email from Angie Koontz, LMC's Office Administrator, informing her that, beginning on Monday, January 8, 2018, she would be required to be in the office from 9:30 to 3:30 daily. (Doc. No. 31-2, at 1.) The email, which was directed to Rim, did not state that Champion and Twilbeck would also be required to be in the office during specific hours. (Id.) However, while Champion and Twilbeck, like the plaintiff, were Certifying Scientists, they also had the experience and credentialing to travel to client sites and consult on methodology. (Davidson Dep., Doc. No. 26-2, at 134-38.) The plaintiff did not have the experience or credentials to serve as a consultant, and her job duties did not require travel.⁴ (Davidson Dep. at 113-14.)

Koontz testified that, as a result of receiving multiple reports from clients that work was not being completed in a timely manner and that clients were unable to get in touch with anyone in the Nashville office, LMC implemented a new policy in January 2018, requiring employees to be in the office during certain hours when they were not traveling for work. (Doc. No. 26-3, at 124, 167; Davidson Dep. 44.) As the plaintiff points out, the only email in the record announcing this new policy required the plaintiff to be in the office during certain hours. It did not apply to Twilbeck or Champion. (Doc. No. 31-2, at 1.) The email also notified Rim that she would be required to email a daily task list at the start of each day and an update at the end of the day. (Id.) According to Koontz, Twilbeck and Champion spent a substantial amount of time traveling, but they, too, were supposed to be in the office when they were not traveling. (Doc. No. 26-3, at 122.) The plaintiff has no evidence to refute this statement, but neither has LMC produced documentation supporting it.

The plaintiff denies that she received actual training, other than on-the-job training, when she began working at LMC. She characterized the training as a process of "trial and error," which involved Michael Twilbeck's showing her the differences between the processes at the clinic where she had worked previously and those used at LMC. (Rim Dep. 28 ("[H]e was showing me the difference between how . . . LMC worked and the difference with the clinics that I worked prior.").) After about a month of his explaining things to her, she felt able to do everything on her own, but he continued to help her with her results throughout her tenure at LMC. (Rim Dep. 28-29.) According to Davidson, Rim spent "months supposedly training under Michael Twilbeck and Charles Champion," reading data, before she was allowed to certify data on her own. (Davidson Dep. 111-13.)⁵ Rim was released to certify data independently beginning in or around January 2018.⁶

After the plaintiff was released to certify data in January up until her termination in May 2018, she repeatedly misread lab results. (Davidson Dep. at 100-01; Rim Dep. 85-137.)⁷ The record is replete with evidence of the plaintiff's errors, including emails documenting at least a dozen instances in which the plaintiff's work had to be reviewed and resubmitted from January through April 2018. (Rim Dep. Exs. 4, 5, 7-16, Doc. No. 26-1, at 249-51, 253-70.) The plaintiff offers no evidence that any other employee had an error rate approaching hers.

On April 10, 2018, shortly after Rim requested information concerning LMC's maternity leave policy, LMC implemented an employee handbook that contained various policies and procedures, including a provision for six weeks of paid maternity leave. (See LMC Employee Handbook, Rim Dep. Ex. 2, Doc. No. 26-1, at 195-247.) The plaintiff received a copy of the handbook on April 10, 2018. (Doc. No. 26-1, at 248.) Rim met with Angie Koontz and John Adkins that day to go over the handbook and for the purpose of discussing her mistakes and the importance of accuracy for patient care. (Koontz Decl., Doc. No. 26-4 ¶ 3 and attached memo., Doc. No. 26-4, at 3; see also Rim Dep. at 123-26 (acknowledging that she talked to Adkins and Koontz about the misreads during the April 10, 2018 meeting and about whether she needed additional training).)⁸ The plaintiff admitted to rushing through her work and assured Koontz and Adkins that she could do the job and did not need any additional training. (Koontz Decl., Doc. No. 26-4 ¶ 3 and attached memo., Doc. No. 26-4, at 3; Rim Dep. at 125-26.)

Rim testified that, by the time the handbook was implemented, she believed that the company was "already trying to fire [her]." (Rim Dep. 166.) When asked why, she stated: "Because of just the way I was treated, the way I was talked to." (Id.) She talked to Twilbeck and Champion about it and repeatedly asked Twilbeck if the company was trying to replace her, particularly after she learned that the company had announced that it was looking to hire someone for her "same position." (Id.) Twilbeck responded, "Not that I know of yet, but we will keep you updated." (Id.)

Following the April 10, 2018 meeting, Rim continued to make errors reading lab results. (Rim Dep. 116-19, 122-23, 133-35; Rim Dep. Ex. 15, Doc. No. 26-1, at 268-69; Koontz Dep. Ex. 13, Doc. No. 26-3, at 183.) On April 20, 2018, LMC issued plaintiff a written Progressive Discipline Warning ("written discipline"). It appears that the written discipline initially referenced errors that had been reported to Koontz on April 19 and April 20, 2018. The original form is not in the record, but when the plaintiff received an email from Koontz notifying her of the written discipline, the plaintiff responded that "the mis-reads that are being fixed," apparently referencing reads for LMC's client, MD Analysis, "were prior to [the] conversation on 4/10/18," and that the plaintiff did not perform any work for MD Analysis between April 10 and April 20, 2018. (See Doc. No. 26-1, at 276 (April 20, 2018 email from Rim to Koontz responding to email from Koontz titled "Written Warning").) In other words, the plaintiff objected to receiving a written discipline related to events that took place before implementation of the employee handbook. Koontz responded to the plaintiff's email, stating: "You are absolutely correct for MD Analysis and I have taken that off of the warning form." (Id. at 275 (April 24, 2018 email from Koontz to Rim).)

The written discipline that is actually in...