Sedarous v. Henry Ford Health Sys.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 39)

LINDA V. PARKER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

Plaintiff Mina Sedarous initiated this lawsuit against Defendant Henry Ford Health System (“Henry Ford Health”), averring that Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment as a pharmacy supervisor because of his wrist injury and in retaliation for his request to work from home as a result of the injury. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleged (i) disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PDCRA”); (ii) retaliation in violation of the ADA; and (iii) intentional infliction of emotional distress.^[1] (ECF No. 1 at Pg. ID 3-7.)

2

Currently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 39.) The motion has been fully briefed. (ECF Nos. 45, 47.) For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's motion.

BACKGROUND

Henry Ford Health employed Plaintiff as a pharmacist, and later as a pharmacy supervisor, beginning in 2008 until March 5, 2019. (See Sedarous Dep. at 14-17, ECF No. 39-3 at Pg. ID 199-200.) As a pharmacy supervisor, Plaintiff ran the day-to-day operations of two of Defendant's ambulatory pharmacies. (See Job Description, ECF No. 39-2.) Between the two facilities, Plaintiff supervised up to approximately 40 pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. (Sedarous Dep. at 15-16, ECF No. 39-3 at Pg. ID 199.)

According to Plaintiff, sometime before July 2018, he and another pharmacy supervisor, Heidi Schultz, had a falling out.^[2] (ECF No. 45 at Pg. ID 1603; see Termination Tr. at 12-13, ECF No. 39-7 at Pg. ID 462-63.) In May 2018, Schultz was promoted to interim manager of certain pharmacy supervisors, including Plaintiff. (See Schultz Dep. at 10-11, ECF No. 39-5 at Pg. ID 341.) In July 2018,

3

Schultz was hired into the permanent manager position. (Id.) Prior to July 2018, no manager or pharmacy supervisor complained to HR about Plaintiff. (See Bowman Dep. at 45-46, ECF No. 45-17 at Pg. ID 2626-27; Sandburn Dep. at 42-43, ECF No. 45-18 at Pg. ID 2687-88.)

On July 9, 2018, after reviewing records in the timekeeping system, Schultz forwarded Plaintiff an email asking why he worked four days a week, 10 hours a day. (7/9/18 Emails, ECF No. 39-6 at Pg. ID 403.) Schultz further stated that “[n]one of the other [s]upervisors are scheduled that way and the only reason coordinators have that option is because they are on-line pharmacists.” (Id.) In response to Schultz's email, Plaintiff explained that his schedule was based on the unique needs of the high-volume pharmacies for which he was responsible and that “[t]hat schedule ha[d] been in place for years.” (Id. at Pg. ID 404.) Plaintiff also asserts that it is not true that other supervisors did not maintain a similar schedule. (ECF No. 45 at Pg. ID 1604 (citing Kronos Time Details, ECF No. 45-6); 5/19/21 Motion Hearing.) Schultz then emailed a human resources representative to seek clarification about the rules and policy regarding supervisor schedules. (7/10/18 Emails, ECF No. 45-7 at Pg. ID 2059.) The representative informed Schultz that Plaintiff's schedule was based on the business needs of the departments and, “[b]ased on the ambulatory pharmacy department needs . . ., it sounds like [a]

4

[supervisor] should be working Monday - Friday on a regular basis.” (Id. at Pg. ID 2060.)

On July 23, 2018, Schultz emailed Plaintiff to inform him that, per a conversation she had with Dan Kus-Schultz's supervisor-Plaintiff was to work five days a week. (7/23/18 & 7/24/18 Emails, ECF No. 39-6.) Schultz further explained that Plaintiff's “main job [was] to manage [his] staff at both sites and run [his] business.” (Id.) In the same email, Schultz also inquired as to Plaintiff's whereabouts the preceding Thursday, July 18, 2018, when she visited his pharmacies during business hours and found he was not there. (Id.) Plaintiff responded, stating that he was at one of the pharmacy sites on July 18 for “an hour or so” after Schultz left. (Id. at Pg. ID 409.) Plaintiff also asked, “Am I in trouble or under investigation? I need to know please ☺.” (Id.) Schultz did not respond to Plaintiff's question and, after this email exchange, Plaintiff began logging time records that reflected work on five days a week, eight hours a day. (ECF No. 45 at Pg. ID 1605 (citing Kronos Time Detail, ECF No. 45-10; Schultz Dep. at 45-46, ECF No. 39-5 at Pg. ID 349-50).)

On January 5, 2019, Plaintiff forwarded Schultz an email requesting, among other things, to work “4 long days on some weeks.” (1/5/19 & 1/7/19 Emails, ECF No. 39-6 at Pg. ID 411.) Plaintiff stated:

I trust you would think it over from a business perspective I am not asking for a special treatment or deviation from

5

any rules. I want to continue to do the best for my sites meanwhile I do not want to risk losing my job or find myself in a position I have to keep explaining what I do or the fluctuating hours I work to match the need of my business over and over

(Id.)

Though Plaintiff testified that Schultz was not clear about a requirement to be physically present at the pharmacies during the work week (Sedarous Dep. at 64-70, ECF No. 39-3 at Pg. ID 211-13), Schultz responded to Plaintiff's email, stating: “Routinely, you are expected to work five days per week and use PTO on days you are not on site working. If you need to hire additional Pharmacist coverage to help with workflow, I am in complete agreement. Let me know if I answered all of your questions or if you need clarification.” (1/5/19 & 1/7/19 Emails, ECF No. 39-6 at Pg. ID 412.)

On January 24, 2019, Plaintiff broke his right wrist during an accident unrelated to his job duties. (Sedarous Dep. at 18-19, ECF No. 39-3 at Pg. ID 200.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that “[t]his injury caused [him] to be unable to perform manual tasks and work; to wit, he could not drive, and this restriction impaired his ability to work.” (Compl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 1 at Pg. ID 2.) Plaintiff received a doctor's note, which states in relevant part: “[p]lease allow patient to

6

work remotely from home for the next 3 weeks as much as he can tolerate.” (ECF No. 19 at Pg. ID 110.)

On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff forwarded the doctor's note to Schultz and notified her of his intention to go into work on the days that his son could drive him. (1/28/19 & 1/29/19 Emails, ECF No. 39-6 at Pg. ID 422.) Schultz responded on the same day, stating:

[W]hat kind of timeframe are we talking about? How many days a week? I will need to evaluate and get approval from [Kus] The alternative would be to get some pharmacist help for you Please outline for me how many days a week I would need to cover for you if [Kus] doesn't approve you working from home. Also outline what you would be doing at home.

(Id. at Pg. ID 425.) Plaintiff did not immediately respond. The next morning, Schultz sent a follow-up email to Plaintiff, asking him to “provide input regarding the questions” she asked “[i]n order to get [Kus] and HR's approval for [him] to work from home.” (Id. at Pg. ID 426.) Plaintiff responded and explained that he was reluctant to take time off because one of the pharmacies he manages was in the middle of a move and there were many administrative tasks that needed to be completed beforehand. (Sedarous Dep. at 122-23, ECF No. 39-3 at Pg. ID 226.) Schultz emailed back, explaining that, “[d]ue to the nature of [his] role, [Defendant] [was] unable to accommodate [Plaintiff's] request to work from home.” (1/28/19 & 1/29/19 Emails, ECF No. 39-6 at Pg. ID 428.) Schultz noted

7

that “preparing for the move out” “[could] be put on temporary hold.” (Id.) Schultz suggested that, if he could not work, Plaintiff request a medical leave of absence. (Id.) Schultz also suggested that, if he could work, Plaintiff find a ride to work via a family member or cab, and she would “provide some assistance with the things [he] may need extra help with.” (Id.) “[L]et me know what your plan will be. . . . If you choose to continue working, let's meet to talk about how I can help, ” Schultz concluded. (Id.) Plaintiff never responded. (See id.; Sedarous Dep. at 124-25, ECF No. 39-3 at Pg. ID 226-27.)

Approximately one week later, on February 6, the weather was reported as snowy with icy conditions. On that day, Defendant forwarded an email encouraging employees to “use [their] best judgment in consultation with [their] leader about how and where [they] work[ed] [that day], including from home if possible.” (2/6/19 Email, ECF No. 45-14 at Pg. ID 2324-25.) The email further noted that “[i]f the team member fails to communicate with their leader, it could result in an occurrence for their attendance.”^[3] (Id.) The record suggests that it also snowed on February 7 and 13, though it does not appear Defendant forwarded a similar email to its employees regarding those dates.

8

Plaintiff worked from home on each of the three days-February 6, 7, and 13-and points out that he texted Schultz on February 13, stating that he would not be coming into work due to the bad road conditions. (Feb. Texts, ECF No. 39-6 at Pg. ID 432.) Schultz did not immediately receive Plaintiff's text message because, as Plaintiff knew (Sedarous Dep. at 89-90, ECF No. 39-3 at Pg. ID 301-02), she was vacationing in Mexico at the time (Schultz Dep. at 58-59, ECF No. 39-5 at Pg. ID 353). When Schultz returned from Mexico, she reviewed timecards and asked Plaintiff if he came into work on February 13 or if he needed PTO for that day. (Feb. Texts, ECF No. 39-6 at Pg. ID 433.) After Plaintiff stated that he worked from home, Schultz...