Sharbaugh v. W. Haven Manor, LP

REGINA SHARBAUGH, executor of theestate of Robert H. Sharbaugh, Plaintiff, v. WEST HAVEN MANOR, LP and SUGAR CREEK REST, INC. d/b/aQUALITY LIFE SERVICES, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 14-1723

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

November 21, 2016

OPINION

CONTI, Chief U.S. District Judge

This employment discrimination and retaliation case is being pursued by Regina Sharbaugh on behalf of the estate of Robert Sharbaugh ("Sharbaugh"), the individual who claimed that West Haven Manor, L.P. ("West Haven") wrongfully terminated him because of his disability and his request that it be accommodated. (ECF No. 67 (Joint Statement of Material Facts ("JSMF")) ¶ D1.¹) Pending before the court is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants West Haven and Sugar Creek Rest Inc., d/b/a Quality Life Services ("QLS"), (collectively, "Defendants") seeking judgment as a matter of law with respect to all claims asserted in the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 52.)

In the second amended complaint, Sharbaugh claims that Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101- 12117 (the "ADA"), and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 951-63 (the "PHRA"), by discriminating against him on the basis of his disability, particularly his need for a reasonable accommodation, and by retaliating against him for requesting a reasonable accommodation.² (ECF No. 16 at 3-6.) Sharbaugh seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages and attorneys' fees, as well as injunctive relief against further violations of the ADA and PHRA. (Id.) This court exercises subject-matter jurisdiction over Sharbaugh's federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over his state-law claims under the PHRA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment must be denied. The record is replete with genuine disputes of material fact that preclude entry of judgment as a matter of law in Defendants' favor on any claim.

I. Factual Background

The factual background is derived from the undisputed evidence of record and the disputed evidence of record viewed in the light most favorable to Sharbaugh, the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Other undisputed facts may be discussed in the context of each of Sharbaugh's legal claims where appropriate.

Sharbaugh began his employment for West Haven, a nursing home located in Apollo, Pennsylvania, on October 25, 2010. (JSMF ¶¶ D1.) West Haven is owned by QLS, which owns a group of nursing homes in Western Pennsylvania. (Id. ¶ D2.) When Sharbaugh was hired, he was the maintenance supervisor. (JSMF ¶ D4, ¶ P13.) The maintenance supervisor worked alongside the supervisors of the laundry and housekeeping departments. (JSMF ¶ D4.) Approximately six months into his term of employment with West Haven, Sharbaugh was promoted to "Environmental Services Director," also referred to as "Environmental Director" in the record, and became responsible for supervising the maintenance supervisor appointed to replace him, the laundry supervisor, and the housekeeping supervisor. (JSMF ¶ D5, ¶¶ P13-14.) Sharbaugh reported to Ken Tack ("Tack") until Tack retired on December 31, 2013, and then Sharbaugh reported to Michael Ligo ("Ligo"). (JSMF ¶ P16.)

In Sharbaugh's annual performance review, dated December 5, 2013, Tack noted that Sharbaugh's performance was "falling short of [] expectations" because his "job includes physical labor at times [and] we are not seeing it." (JSMF ¶ P20; ECF No. 62-2 at 36.) Medical records reflect that Sharbaugh visited his orthopedic surgeon five days later, on December 10, 2013, with complaints of left knee pain and swelling, and was told that surgery would be performed later that same week to remove the existing implant in his left knee. (ECF No. 62-2 at 25.) Sharbaugh immediately informed Defendants that he would require medical leave due tohis own serious health condition, i.e., his knee condition and the related surgery, which was scheduled for December 13, 2013. (JSMF ¶ P21; ECF No. 62-2 at 25, 37.)

Defendants notified Sharbaugh in writing on December 16, 2013, that he was eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and instructed him to return an FMLA Certification Form (the "FMLA Form") to Defendants' Human Resources Director, Gail Roberts ("Roberts"). (ECF No. 62-2 at 37.) Sharbaugh's completed FMLA Form, which is signed by Sharbaugh's surgeon, indicates that Sharbaugh had surgery on an infected left knee on December 13, 2013, and was scheduled for knee replacement surgery on that same knee on March 7, 2014. (ECF No. 62-2 at 39-42.) The FMLA Form was received by Roberts on behalf of Defendants on January 8, 2014. (Id. at 39.) The FMLA Form states that Sharbaugh is unable to perform any job functions due to his condition, and includes the handwritten notation "No Work." (Id. at 40.) The FMLA Form also indicates that Sharbaugh will be incapacitated for a single continuous period of time, beginning on December 13, 2013 and ending "est. 6-13-14," or approximately three months after Sharbaugh's second knee surgery. (Id. at 41.) Sharbaugh's surgeon actually released him to work effective July 28, 2014. (JSMF ¶ D25; ECF No. 62-3 at 15.) Sharbaugh, however, did not return to work at West Haven on that date because his employment had been terminated on March 7, 2014. (JSMF ¶ D22.) On September 30, 2014, Sharbaugh reapplied for employment with West Haven, or several associated nursing homes and personal care facilities, but was informed that "there are no open positions that meet the description of interest indicated on your application." (JSMF ¶¶ P99-100; ECF No. 62-3 at 3-6.)

Sharbaugh's pertinent FMLA leave period began on December 11, 2013. (ECF No. 54 at 70.) Sharbaugh was not paid any salary while on FMLA leave. (JSMF ¶ P65.) The monthly cost to Defendants of the fringe benefits that Sharbaugh was eligible to receive while he was on FMLA leave was approximately $350.00, which consisted of the premium payments for his medical, vision, and short term disability insurances. (ECF No. 62-1 at 33.) According to Defendants' calculations, and due to a 7-day FMLA leave period taken in May 2013, Sharbaugh exhausted his allotted FMLA leave time on February 21, 2014. (JSMF ¶ D6; ECF No. 54 at 70-71, 87; ECF No. 62-2 at 43-44.) Roberts set forth her calculation of Sharbaugh's FMLA leave time in an email to Susie Beardsley ("Beardsley") dated February 12, 2014. (ECF No. 62-2 at 44.) Beardsley is a part owner of QLC and its chief administrative officer. (JSMF ¶ P3; ECF No. 62-2 at 2 (Beardsley depo.) at 9 (lns. 18-25), 10 (lns. 1-22).) Beardsley made decisions for QLC relating to requests for additional leave under the ADA, and was the decisionmaker with respect to Sharbaugh's termination. (JSMF ¶ D19; ECF No. 54 at 17, 22; ECF No. 62-2 at 10 (depo. pgs. 61-62).) Roberts reported to Beardsley and forwarded all human resources-related issues or questions that were not "routine" to Beardsley for ultimate resolution. (ECF No. 54 at 37-38.)

In her February 12, 2014 email, Roberts informed Beardsley about the anticipated date on which Sharbaugh's FMLA leave would exhaust, i.e., February 21, 2014, inaccurately stating that "Robert's 2^nd surgery date to redo his knee replacement has not been set as of yet" and noting that "[t]his was a mess last time." (ECF No. 62-2 at 44.) The email attached a draft letter from Roberts to Sharbaugh, that "was originally from [counsel]," which Roberts planned to send to Sharbaugh by February 14, 2014. (Id.) Roberts' February 12, 2014 email opens with the following text: "Here we are again with Robert Sharbaugh (environmental services director)coming down to the wire for FMLA," a statement that Roberts made because Sharbaugh "had situations before where his FMLA was about to expire, and [Defendants] were about to experience that again." (JSMF ¶¶ P24-25.) Sharbaugh had taken periods of FMLA leave twice in 2012, and in May 2013 before taking the period of FMLA leave at issue in this case. (JSMF ¶ D6; ECF No. 54 at 69-70.) Three minutes after Roberts sent the February 12, 2014 email, Beardsley sent the following response: "I think we still need to send him the letter telling him when his FMLA leave exhausts and asking him to convey his intention to return. That should be standard. We may need to involve [counsel] again if the response from him (or his daughter) is not standard." (ECF No. 62-2 at 46.) The record reflects that Sharbaugh's daughter intervened on his behalf when Sharbaugh needed an extension of a prior period of medical leave and Defendants refused to provide it. (JSMF ¶ P26.)

As instructed, Roberts sent a letter to Sharbaugh, dated February 14, 2014, which was drafted mostly by Defendants' counsel. (JSMF ¶¶ P30-31; ECF No. 62-2 at 43.) Although the letter is dated February 14, 2014, a Friday, it was not received by the U.S. Postal Service until Tuesday, February 18, 2014, at which time it was processed as certified mail with return receipt requested. (JSMF ¶ P37; ECF No. 62-2 at 47.) The letter was delivered to Sharbaugh on Monday, February 24, 2014. (Id.) In the letter, Roberts informed Sharbaugh that his FMLA leave will exhaust on February 21, 2014 (the previous Friday) and that absences beyond that date will be "treated in accordance with our FMLA, attendance and other policies" because Sharbaugh had no additional leave or unused accrued earned time off available. (JSMF ¶¶ D8-9; ECF No. 62-2 at 43.) At the time Sharbaugh received this letter his FMLA leave was already exhausted. The letter also stated that "we require employees on leave to provide notice of their intent to return to work. We have not received any indication of your release to return to workin the foreseeable future. If you are in or come into possession of any such return-to-work information, please provide it to me...