Roman v. Geisinger W.V. Med. Ctr.

1

DEBRA ROMAN, Plaintiff v. GEISINGER W.V. MEDICAL CENTER and MARIA CUMBO, Defendants

Civil Action No. 3:20-45

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

March 31, 2022

MEMORANDUM

MALACHY E. MANNION, United States District Judge

Pending before the court is the motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, filed by defendants Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center (hereinafter, “Geisinger”) and Marie Cumbo (collectively “defendants”) (Doc. 33), with respect to the remaining federal and state law claims of retaliation against Geisinger, and her state law aiding and abetting retaliation claim against Cumbo raised in Counts I & III, respectively, of the amended complaint, (Doc. 11), filed by plaintiff Debra Roman. Specifically, plaintiff claims that after she reported racism against patients, including Blacks and Latinos, as well as against non-English speaking patients by her co-workers to her former employer, Geisinger, defendants retaliated against her and eventually terminated her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §2000e, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 P.S. §951, et seq., Count I. In Count III, plaintiff alleges that Cumbo, her former supervisor, aided and abetted Geisinger when it retaliated against her for “complaining about racial, national origin discrimination/hostile work environment”, in violation of §955(e) of the PHRA.

In their motion, defendants argue that Geisinger is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the plaintiff's remaining retaliation claims since plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation and retaliatory hostile work environment. Defendants also argue that Combo cannot be found liable as aiding and abetting retaliation under §955(e) of the PHRA as a matter of law since plaintiff failed to establish that Geisinger retaliated against her.

As discussed below, the court will GRANT defendants' motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 33), with respect to the plaintiff's remaining claims, (Counts I and III), in her amended complaint, (Doc. 11), against Geisinger and Cumbo. JUDGMENT will be entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

In her amended complaint filed on March 11, 2020, (Doc. 11), through counsel, in this Title VII and PHRA retaliation case, plaintiff alleges she worked for Geisinger as a Radiation Therapist, and in the Spring of 2019, she reported the above stated discriminatory conduct to her employer. She alleges that after Geisinger investigated her report, she was retaliated against by its employees and harassed by her co-workers, including Cumbo. Plaintiff also alleges that she was “forced, as a condition of employment, ” to undergo psychological counseling. Subsequently, plaintiff alleges that she received various reprimands, disciplines, and a lower performance evaluation, that culminated when Geisinger terminated her employment on June 13, 2019.

Defendants filed an answer with affirmative defenses to the amended complaint on April 7, 2021. (Doc. 28)

Discovery was then conducted and it has now been completed.

On June 30, 2021, defendants jointly filed their motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 33), with their statement of facts and Exhibits, as well as their brief in support. (Docs. 34 & 35). After being granted an extension of time, on July 31, 2021, plaintiff filed her brief in opposition to defendants' motion. (Doc. 43). Plaintiff also filed her response to defendants' statement of facts and Exhibits. (Docs. 38, 40-42, 44). Included as an Exhibit, (Doc. 38), is a CD of the audio transcript of plaintiff's appeal for unemployment compensation. Defendants filed a reply brief on August 16, 2021. (Doc. 46).

The court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because plaintiff avers violations of Title VII. The court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her PHRA state law retaliation claim under 28 U.S.C. §1337. Venue is appropriate in this court since the alleged unlawful conduct occurred in this district and all parties are located here. See 28 U.S.C. §1391.

II. MATERIAL FACTS^[2]

Plaintiff, who is a Registered Radiation Therapist, began working for Geisinger in about November of 2007. As a Geisinger Staff Radiation Therapist, plaintiff worked in the Cancer Center/Radiation Oncology Department as part of a team to prepare for and administer radiation therapy to oncology patients. During the relevant time period of this case, plaintiff worked in the Radiation Department under Lori Starbuck, Chief Radiation Therapist, and Operations Manager, Cumbo.

All Geisinger employees must adhere to its employment policies, including its Code of Conduct and its “Harassment and Disruptive Behavior” Policy. (See generally Doc. 34-1 at 21-52). The Policy, in relevant part, provides that Geisinger “expect[s] you to treat your coworkers with respect, dignity and fairness”, and the Policy prohibits “‘intimidating and disruptive behaviors', including, but not limited to, overt actions such as verbal outbursts and physical threats; passive activities such as refusing to perform assigned tasks or quietly exhibiting uncooperative attitudes during routine activities; reluctance or refusal to answer questions, return phone calls or pages; condescending language or voice intonation; and impatience with questions.”

The Policy also explained why the above conduct was prohibited and stated that such conduct “can foster medical errors, contribute to poor patient satisfaction and preventable adverse outcomes, increase the cost of care and cause qualified clinicians, administrators, managers and affected employees to seek new positions in more professional environments.” It further explained that intimidating and disruptive behaviors in the workplace “undermine team effectiveness and can compromise the safety of patients”, and that they were “unprofessional and should not be tolerated.”

Geisinger's Code of Conduct also contained a provision describing penalties for violations of the either the Code or any of its policies, and stated that violations “can result in disciplinary action, up to and including discharge from employment or termination of your contract.” However, Code violations could not be cited by an individual supervisor alone without input from the Human Resources Department (“HR”).

Plaintiff had performance/disciplinary issues during her employment with Geisinger. In her September 12, 2011 Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”), plaintiff was cited for an improper exchange with a co-worker, R.S., that occurred on September 2, 2011, and made to undergo a counseling session with Cumbo. (Doc. 34-1 at 57). Shortly after the session, Plaintiff had another “confrontational exchange” with R.S., and this time plaintiff was cited by Cumbo for a Code of Conduct violation and she was issued a verbal warning. In her PIP, plaintiff was instructed by Cumbo that “[i]nteractions with coworkers in the workplace should be respectful and professional at all times.”

Due to the incidents between plaintiff and R.S., so-called “Ground Rules” had to be established for plaintiff and several other co-workers, including R.S. and Starbuck, which included the agreement between plaintiff and her co-workers that they would “act professionally” and “be mindful of what patients can hear and what their perception might be.” (Doc. 34-1 at 60). The employees were required to sign that they agreed to abide by the stated rules. From September 2011 through March 2019, there is no evidence of performance or work conduct issues with the plaintiff.

However, in April 2019, plaintiff was again found to be acting in an unprofessional manner in front of patients. In one instance, while plaintiff was bringing a patient to the treatment unit, a co-worker asked to interrupt the plaintiff's conversation with the patient and then asked the patient for their name and date of birth. Plaintiff responded by placing her arm around the patient and telling the patient that they would have to excuse her co-worker therapist and that is just how the therapist and she always interrupts conversations.

In another incident, also in April 2019, a different patient asked where plaintiff was, and the treating therapist stated that plaintiff was at another machine. Plaintiff then responded that this is what happens here since management was kicking her “off the island.” The other therapist tried to explain the matter and told the patient that it was due to a normal rotation within the department. Plaintiff then responded in front of the patient that the other therapist could believe what she wanted.

The above stated incidents involving plaintiff's apparent violations of the Code of Conduct resulting in a meeting between Cumbo, Starbuck, and plaintiff. The two incidents were discussed in the meeting and Cumbo told plaintiff that it was not appropriate for her to speak to co-workers like she did, especially in front of patients. Plaintiff responded that Cumbo and Starbuck “got caught with [their] pants down.” Plaintiff was then told by Cumbo that she should not talk to either she or Starbuck in that manner. Plaintiff also complained about being placed on-call for her 60^th birthday. However, Cumbo reminded plaintiff that the on-call policy is done by rotation and that when the schedule is completed the therapist must find their own replacement.

Following the meeting, Cumbo consulted with HR Department to discuss plaintiff's unacceptable conduct and comments. Subsequently, on April 25, 2019, Cumbo met with Starbuck plaintiff, and Lisa Keifer, Associate Vice President, Cancer Institute. At this time, Cumbo directed plaintiff to be respectful and not use inappropriate...