Schnuerle v. San Joaquin Valley Coll.

1

ROLINA SCHNUERLE, Plaintiff, v. SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY COLLEGE, INC., a California corporation, Defendant.

No. 1:22-cv-00070-DCN

United States District Court, D. Idaho

January 16, 2024

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

DAVID C. NYE CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant San Joaquin Valley College, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 13. The Court held oral argument and took the matter under advisement. Dkt. 25. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Defendant San Joaquin Valley College, Inc. operates a private vocational college, commonly known as Carrington College (hereinafter “Carrington”), in Boise, Idaho Carrington provides instruction and training to students in a variety of programs, including dental hygiene. Carrington's dental hygiene program offers both classroom and clinical education, with students performing dental hygiene services on patients while under the supervision of Carrington's instructors.

Beginning in 2014, Plaintiff Rolina Schnuerle (“Schnuerle”) was a dental hygiene instructor, and at-will employee, at Carrington.^[1] In 2020, Schnuerle became concerned about improper safety practices at Carrington, and particularly by certain actions taken by Carrington's director of dental hygiene, Rachel Watkins, and another Carrington instructor, Vicki Van Hoogen. On approximately August 17, 2020,^[2] Schnuerle submitted a letter to Carrington's employee relations department. Dkt. 13-6, Ex. 5. A few other employees submitted similar letters around the same time. Dkt. 13-3, Ex. A. Schnuerle's letter complained about several decisions by Watkins, including that Watkins “recently allowed our graduated students the use of the ultrasonic during the board exam despite the use of ultrasonic instrumentation not allowed in clinic.”^[3] Id. Schnuerle also reported Watkins' alleged favoritism of Van Hoogen and others, and maintained Schnuerle and other faculty members were afraid Watkins would retaliate against them for speaking out against Van Hoogen. Id. Schnuerle's August 17, 2020 letter did not allege unlawful discrimination or otherwise report a violation of a specific law, policy, or regulation. Id.

Upon reviewing the complaints from Schnuerle and others, Carrington's employee relations department investigated the matter, including by conducting multiple interviews. On September 4, 2020, Schnuerle sent an email to Carrington's investigator, Thomas Corbett, stating she believed she was being retaliated against by Watkins. Dkt. 13-6, Ex. 6. Specifically, Schnuerle alleged that she learned Watkins had asked recent graduates questions about her which the graduates characterized as an apparent attempt to get them to say negative things about Schnuerle. Id. In addition, Schnuerle reported that Watkins told her she had inquired with Corbett about Schnuerle's paid time off for a medical procedure Schnuerle was scheduled to have. Schnuerle stated Watkins “had never done anything like this before,” and maintained Watkins' inquiry suggested Watkins had “awareness that someone has reached out to HR.” Id. Schnuerle also stated she believed Watkins was retaliating against her for complaining because Watkins rescheduled Schnuerle's Pharmacology lectures so Schnuerle would be forced to work two twelve-hour days a week. Schnuerle maintained, “I believe the schedule changes were in retaliation and made at least to make me suffer.” Id. Finally, Schnuerle reported she was afraid of losing her job because Watkins was “in charge” and appeared to be aware that Schnuerle had complained about her. Id. Although Schnuerle's concerns about Watkins' purported retaliation were included as part of the investigation, Watkins ended up granting Schnuerle's request to leave Schnuerle's Pharmacology lectures as originally scheduled, and thus did not go through with implementing the allegedly retaliatory scheduling change. Dkt. 13-6, Ex. 7; Dkt. 13-5, at 57:8-59:23.

Ultimately, Carrington's investigation concluded Schnuerle's allegations were not substantiated, and that Carrington had not violated any regulation, policy, or law. Dkt. 13- 3, Ex. A. The investigation also found Schnuerle had not been retaliated against in any way, and determined Watkins did not go through with changing Schnuerle's schedule once Schnuerle alerted Watkins about her concerns. Although the investigation did not find any policy violations, Watkins was informed at the end of the investigation there was a perception amongst some employees that she favored Van Hoogen. Dkt. 13-2, ¶ 9. Carrington provided Watkins with coaching on how to communicate more effectively with her team to eliminate any perception of favoritism. Id. The internal investigation was closed on September 29, 2020. Dkt. 13-3, Ex. A.

After her September 4, 2020 email to Corbett, Schnuerle did not thereafter raise any workplace concerns. However, on November 5, 2020, a patient seeking dental treatment presented to Carrington's dental clinic after having recently used methamphetamine. Schnuerle was worried that administering local anesthesia to the patient would be a safety risk and reported this to Watkins. Watkins told Schnuerle that the supervising dentist, Dr. Thomas, was responsible for determining whether the patient could receive anesthesia. While it is undisputed that the patient was ultimately dismissed from Carrington's dental clinic without receiving any anesthesia or other treatment, Schnuerle contends both Dr. Thomas and Watkins told her to administer the injection. Dkt. 20-1, at ¶ 13. However, due to her safety concerns, Schnuerle “refused Dr. Thomas and Watkins' directives, rescheduled and discharged the patient.” Id.

As a result of the patient incident, Schnuerle wrote a resignation letter later the same evening. Id. Schnuerle submitted the resignation letter a few days later, on November 9, 2020. Dkt. 13-2, ¶ 14. Schnuerle's resignation letter did not identify any reason for her resignation and did not address either the patient issue or Schnuerle's other safety concerns. Dkt. 13-4, Ex. B. Prior to resigning, Schnuerle did not inform Watkins-or anyone else at Carrington-that she felt compelled to resign due to the patient incident, or that she believed she needed to resign because her work conditions were unsafe or otherwise intolerable. Dkt. 13-5, at 151:1-154:4. Instead, on November 19, 2020, ten days after she submitted her resignation letter, Schnuerle emailed a letter (hereinafter “post-resignation letter”) to Carrington's employee relations department, outlining several issues she had with her work environment at Carrington. Dkt. 13-6, Ex. 11.

In addition to reporting the November 5, 2020 patient issue, Schnuerle's postresignation letter alleged that she had witnessed improper Lidocaine administration to Carrington patients. Id. Specifically, in November 2019, a supervising dentist at Carrington, Dr. Hunt, noticed air bubbles in some Lidocaine cartridges used by the clinic. Schnuerle alleges that although air bubbles are a sign of contamination, Watkins instructed another Carrington employee to allow the use of the potentially contaminated cartridges in Carrington's clinic. While she disagreed with the use of the Lidocaine cartridges, Schnuerle did not report the Lidocaine issue to anyone at Carrington in 2019, or at any time thereafter, until her post-resignation letter. Dkt. 13-5, at 98:20-99:11.

Schnuerle also reported that in or around August 2019, a patient developed an infection after receiving treatment from several students during a Western Regional Examining Board (“WREB”) examination. Dkt. 13-6, Ex. 11. Schnuerle maintained the patient should have been, but was not, prescribed an antibiotic by Carrington's supervising dentist. Id. While Carrington disputes Schnuerle's characterization of the patient incident, Dkt. 13-2, ¶ 21, Schnuerle testified she is unaware of any law or regulation requiring the use of signed treatment plans, and also confirmed that her post-resignation letter was the first time she raised the patient infection issue with anyone at Carrington. Dkt. 13-5, at 107:21-108:5.

Schnuerle next alleged that Watkins allowed ultrasonic instrumentation to be used on patients for a WREB clinical exam, even though Watkins had previously informed students that they would not be able to use such equipment for board examinations due to pandemic-related concerns about the use of aerosol products.^[4] Carrington highlights, and Schnuerle testified during her deposition, that no law or regulation prohibits the use of ultrasonic instrumentation, and that this is instead a matter left up to school policy. Dkt. 13-2, ¶ 24; Dkt. 13-5, at 114:6-11. Carrington also notes that Watkins only allowed students to use the ultrasonic instrumentation during their WREB exam after first contacting WREB and confirming that WREB did not have a policy prohibiting ultrasonic equipment during the pandemic, and after obtaining approval to use the equipment from Carrington management. Dkt. 13-2, ¶ 24.

Schnuerle's post-resignation letter also maintained Watkins was negligent in allowing Carrington's clinic to remain open on October 30, 2020, when, during what appeared to be mold remediation work occurring in the classroom adjacent to Carrington's public clinic, several individuals felt sick. Dkt. 13-6, Ex. 11. Although Carrington highlights Watkins was not working on the day of the purported mold remediation work, and that Carrington's clinic was closed until the strong odor subsided, Dkt. 13-2, ¶ 27, Schnuerle's post-resignation letter was the first time she raised the alleged mold issue with anyone at Carrington. Dkt. 13-5, at 118:10-25.

In her...