Speach v. Bon Secours Health Sys.

1

Lisa Blackman Speach, Plaintiff, v. Bon Secours Health System, Inc., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 6:22-884-HMH-KFM

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

February 10, 2023

REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

KEVIN F. MCDONALD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the court on the defendant's motion for summary judgment (doc. 32) and the plaintiff's motion to compel (doc. 43). Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(A), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.), all pretrial matters in employment discrimination cases are referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for consideration.

I. BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, is African American and was employed by the defendant or its predecessors on several occasions, including from October 7 1996, to November 26, 1996; August 26, 1997, to March 28 1999; January 1,2002, to February 15, 2002; and March 14, 2008, to November 2021 (doc. 32-1, Speach dep. at exhibit 7). In her most recent employment with the defendant, she was hired as a part-time nurse practitioner for Palmetto Pulmonology, a physician's practice in the Sleep Center in the defendant's main hospital complex in Greenville, South Carolina (id. at 38:10-39:16, exhibit 2; doc. 32-2 at 2). The plaintiff was subsequently promoted to full-time on or about September 12, 2010 (doc. 32-1, Speach dep. at 44:1-45:25, exhibit 4). Upon moving to full-time, Dr. Ahmad Boota ("Dr. Boota") asked the plaintiff to work with him and other physicians in the Sleep Center, which was located in the same building as Palmetto Pulmonology (id. at 44:23-49:18). In that role, the plaintiff would see patients as a provider, order studies and labs for patients, and order continuous positive airway pressure ("CPAP") machines and medicine when needed (id. at 48:18-22).

The plaintiff has set forth numerous allegations from her most recent employment with the defendant. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that she was a nurse supervisor in 2017, and she was not included on emails or invited to management meetings like a Caucasian nurse supervisor in another office (doc. 36 at 2-3). The plaintiff contends that she complained several times about this, and she was then included in the meetings and on the emails (id.). However, the plaintiff submits that when the Caucasian nurse supervisor resigned from being a supervisor, the plaintiff was again excluded from the meetings and emails (id.). The plaintiff asserts that when she asked an office administrator why she was excluded, he did not provide a response (id.). Moreover, the plaintiff complained to human resources, but nothing was done (id.). The plaintiff also alleges that this Caucasian nurse supervisor was given a lighter patient load to fulfill her supervisory requirements, but the plaintiff was not (id.). The plaintiff additionally claims that she was told that this Caucasian nurse supervisor was paid more, but she has no proof that this was true (id.).

Moreover, the plaintiff alleges that for several weeks in 2018 she did not have a permanent seat in the office where she could work, but the Caucasian nurse practitioners had assigned seating (docs. 32-1, Speach dep. at 130:4-7, 163:8-19; 36 at 6). The plaintiff alleges that she would arrive at the office during that time period and have to wait for a seating assignment (doc. 32-1, Speach dep. at 130:4-7). The plaintiff spoke to Ron Eskew ("Ms. Eskew"), her manager, about this issue and how it created anxiety for her, and Mr. Eskew said that he would take care of it (id. at 130:8-15). When the plaintiff returned to work following her discussion with Mr. Eskew, she did not have a permanent seat (id. at 130:16-21). The plaintiff told Mr. Eskew that she had to leave work because she was having an anxiety attack, and Mr. Eskew provided her with a permanent seat (id. at 130:21-131:4, 163:19-23).

Also in 2018, the plaintiff alleges that there were not enough providers seeing patients in the Sleep Center and that other providers should have been moved from the hospital or the practice to the Sleep Center (doc. 32-1, Speach dep. at 116:11-118:21). However, the plaintiff submitted in her deposition that this situation was not brought about because of her race (id. at 130:23-25). Further, in that same year, the plaintiff submits that Mr. Eskew did not allow her to change her patient schedule without clearing it with the practice schedulers, but this was not required of the Caucasian nurse practitioners (id. at 98:8-102:11). The plaintiff told Mr. Eskew that she "wasn't going to be micromanaged that way, and [she] didn't know why he was treating [her] differently" (id.). Following the plaintiff's discussion with Mr. Eskew, the plaintiff asserts that this never happened again (id.).

Further, the plaintiff alleges that she was written up in 2020 for voicing her opinion during a staff meeting (doc. 1 at 6, 9). The plaintiff submits that Mr. Eskew told her that the organization only values the opinions of physicians (id. at 9). Mr. Eskew allegedly stated that while that may change in the future, "for now that is the way things are" (id.). However, the plaintiff alleges that Caucasian nurse practitioners spoke freely during staff meetings without repercussions (id.). The defendant has produced statements from three doctors who detailed that the plaintiff was rude and aggressive during the meeting (doc. 32-1 at exhibits 35, 36, 37).

Additionally, the plaintiff alleges that "sometime in 2020," she parked her car in a parking lot for providers and administration staff, and a security guard watched her swipe her identification badge to access the lot and park (doc. 32-1, Speach dep. at 305:11-306:18, 310:23-311:2). However, the security guard asked her if she was authorized to park in that lot (id.). The plaintiff informed the security guard that she was authorized to park there, and she went into work (id.). Later, the plaintiff posted about the incident on Facebook, noting that "[t]his is what it is like to be black in America" (id. at 307:12-22). The plaintiff contends that someone informed human resources about her Facebook post, that she refused to show the security guard her badge, and "said something in regards to . . . black power" (id. at 308:21-309:3). Laura Smith ("Ms. Smith") from human resources spoke with the plaintiff about the incident, and the plaintiff explained that she never refused to show the security guard her badge and did not say "black power" (id. at 309:4-22). The plaintiff was not disciplined for this (id. at 311:3-4). However, the plaintiff submits that Ms. Smith was accusatory during the investigation, and the plaintiff therefore spoke with Carol Alcorn ("Ms. Alcorn") from human resources about how Ms. Smith handled the investigation (id. at 311:25-312:23).

The plaintiff further contends that she was hired to work in the office full-time, but the defendant required her to work in the hospital on some occasions (docs. 36 at 5; 47 at 2). The plaintiff asserts that two Caucasian nurse practitioners were also hired to work in the office, and they were not required to work in the hospital (doc. 47 at 2). The plaintiff submits that she told Mr. Eskew that she did not feel comfortable working in the hospital (id.). Moreover, the plaintiff alleges that she had to obtain leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) from her psychiatrist so that she would not have to work in the hospital (id.; doc. 47-3). When her FMLA leave expired, the plaintiff was told that her FMLA leave would need to be renewed or she would be scheduled to work in the hospital (doc. 36 at 5). The plaintiff contacted Ms. Alcorn about this, and Ms. Alcorn stated that she would investigate the matter (doc. 47 at 2). Later that day, Suchita Nair ("Ms. Nair"), an office administrator, informed the plaintiff that the Caucasian nurse practitioners were being required to work in the hospital as well (id.). The plaintiff attached to her sur-reply documentation reflecting that she was granted intermittent FMLA leave during various times from 2017 to 2022 (doc. 47-3).

The plaintiff further alleges that Ms. Nair discouraged her from signing up to cover extra night shifts, while a Caucasian employee signed up for more night shifts than her (doc. 47 at 2; doc. 32-1, Speach dep. at 206:4-207:23). The plaintiff contacted Ms. Alcorn on January 22, 2021, to let Ms. Alcorn know that she was being treated differently, and the plaintiff was then allowed to sign up for additional night shifts (id.; doc. 47-2 at 2-4).

The plaintiff also claims that a new nurse practitioner was hired, but she was not asked to train her (docs. 1 at 6; 36 at 5). Rather, a Caucasian nurse practitioner with less experience than the plaintiff was asked to do the training (id.). When the plaintiff asked why she was not asked to train the new nurse practitioner, she was given conflicting excuses (id.). Additionally, the plaintiff asserts that she was denied various transfers during her employment, but she also acknowledged that she did not believe that this was based on her race (doc. 32-1, Speach dep. at 34:2-37:20).

Further, the plaintiff alleges that Ms. Nair sent an email to the plaintiff's medical assistant to keep the plaintiff's calendar full by calling in another patient when one cancelled (doc. 32-1, Speach dep. at 203:3-204:14). The plaintiff asked Ms. Nair why she was singling her out compared to the Caucasian nurse practitioners, and Ms. Nair said that she was going to tell the other medical assistants the same message (id.). Ms. Nair ultimately sent that message to the other medical assistants the following day (id.).

In addition, the plaintiff submits that she was denied an alternate work schedule...