Tielle v. Nutrition Grp.

SUZANNE F. TIELLE, Plaintiff v. THE NUTRITION GROUP d/b/a NUTRITION, INC., Defendant

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-2417

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

August 13, 2019

JUDGE MANNION

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the court, in this disability discrimination action filed by plaintiff Suzanne F. Tielle, are cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 filed by plaintiff, (Doc. 16), and her former employer, defendant The Nutrition Group ("TNG") d/b/a Nutrition, Inc., (Doc. 19). Based upon the court's review of the motion and related materials, the defendant's motion will be GRANTED with respect to all of plaintiff's claims in her amended complaint, (Doc. 14). The plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment regarding her disability discrimination claims will be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiff has brought the instant action under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended ("ADAAA"), 42 U.S.C. §12131, et seq., as well as under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, ("PHRA"), 43 P.S. §951, et seq.¹ She filed her original complaint on December 29, 2017. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff then filed her amended complaint on June 29, 2018. (Doc. 14). Specifically, in Count I, plaintiff raises her combined claims under the ADAAA and the PHRA alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation. She alleges that she had a knee disability and was regarded as being disabled. Plaintiff alleges that she could perform the essential functions of her head cook position with an accommodation, namely, the use of a food cart, but that TNG did not allow her to use the cart. Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated on November 7, 2016 because of her disability. She also alleges that she was terminated "in direct retaliation for having requested a reasonable accommodation of being allowed to use a cart to complete her work duties and because of her disability."

After completing discovery, the plaintiff filed her motion for partial summary judgment on December 6, 2018 with respect to her disability discrimination claims under the ADAAA and the PHRA, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ. P. 56.² (Doc. 16). TNG filed it motion for summary judgment on December 27, 2018 with respect to all of plaintiff's claims in her amended complaint. Both motions have been briefed and, statements of material facts and responses as well as exhibits were filed.³

This court's jurisdiction over the plaintiff's federal claims is based on 28 U.S.C. §1331. The court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1337.

II. MATERIAL FACTS⁴

The undisputed facts, as supported by the record, establish that theplaintiff worked from 1986 until 2009 for Aramark, a food service management company, as Kitchen Lead/Head Cook in the Old Forge School District. In 2009, TNG became the food service management company in the district and plaintiff became an employee of TNG working in her same position.

During her employment at the Old Forge School District, plaintiff was a member of the Service Employees International Union ("SEIU").

Plaintiff's job duties with TNG, included the following: 1) being the lead person in the kitchen to supervise other food service workers; 2) maintaining all production records according to PDE, HACCP, and Nutrition Group; 3) ordering and receiving all bread; 4) ensuring that time sheets were filled out by employees; 4) recording of inventory; and 5) assisting FSD with food cost controls and food quality issues. Plaintiff read and agreed to her job duties. Based on her job duties, plaintiff was allowed to use one of the food carts to transport food, kitchen items and supplies in the kitchen and around the school.

Plaintiff testified that she was in charge of nine other employees. She stated that they cooked and served breakfast, and then prepared lunch. After the meals, they would clean up the kitchen and put the food away.

Plaintiff testified that she injured her right knee in 2005 and tore her meniscus, and wore knee braces. Plaintiff also stated that she developed very bad arthritis in her knee. She stated that she was prescribed Naproxen for her knee, that she had cortisone shots every year since her injury and, that shehas a noticeable impairment in her ability to walk. When plaintiff became an employee of TNG in 2009, she told Patricia Baresse, then Regional Manager and current Director of Operations for TNG, and other TNG's representatives that she had a knee injury and that she had trouble with her legs, and she described herself as "disabled." However, at this time, plaintiff did not provide TNG with any documentation showing that she was disabled. Nor did she indicate that she was unable to perform her job responsibilities without an accommodation, and she did not request an accommodation.

In August 2011, Baresse and other representatives of TNG observed plaintiff routinely asking her co-workers to retrieve kitchen items for her, and they became concerned about whether plaintiff could perform all of her job duties. TNG requested plaintiff to have her doctor review her job description and determine whether she was able to perform the duties of her position. Plaintiff's doctor, Dr. Daniel Kazmierski, reviewed her job description and wrote a note stating, "okay for patient to perform said duties." Dr. Kazmierski did not indicate that plaintiff needed an accommodation to perform any of her job duties. Plaintiff then gave Dr. Kazmierski's note to TNG in August 2011.

For months during 2014, Baresse and other representatives of TNG saw plaintiff using a kitchen food cart to support her weight and to assist her with walking in the kitchen, to and from the restroom, to and from the back door of the school building, and to other areas of the school. Plaintiff was also observed placing the food cart by the back door of the school when she left work for the day and then use the cart to assist her with walking when shearrived at the school the next day.⁵

The food carts are used to transport food as well as equipment and supplies in the kitchen and throughout the school. Food carts are not intended to assist a person with walking since they can tip if supporting a person's weight. Further, there is no dispute that a food cart is not a medical device.

TNG determined that plaintiff's use of the food cart to assist her with walking was unsafe and in violation of TNG's safety policy since it put the safety of plaintiff and others at risk.

TNG has an Employee Safety Manual and Safety Policies. TNG's Safety Manual and its safety policies require that all its employees perform their duties in a safe manner to prevent injury to themselves and others. Plaintiff was trained on TNG's safety policies and she was given a copy of the Employee Safety Manual. She read, understood and accepted all of TNG's safety policies. TNG's Safety Manual directed employees to use a "cart" for specific tasks and instructed to use a cart "[i]f a load is too heavy or bulky." The Manual did not provide that food carts should be used to support an employee's weight. In fact, plaintiff admitted that the food cart was not intended to be used to assist someone with walking or as a crutch. Further, while plaintiff admitted that the food cart was intended to transport food and other kitchen items, she believed that it was "not going to hurt anything [or cause a problem] if a person has any type of [medical] issue [and] uses it."

Since plaintiff was repeatedly observed using a food cart to support her weight and to assist her with walking, on June 13, 2014, Baresse, Karen Baranowski, TNG cashier and the Union Shop Steward for SEIU, Tracy Drank, TNG's Food Service Director, Kim Yost, SEIU representative, and Ian O'Brien, TNG's general counsel, met with plaintiff and told her that using the food cart for these purposes was unsafe because it was not intended for such use. Plaintiff was also advised that using the cart in the stated manner violated TNG's safety policy because it was a safety risk. As such, plaintiff was specifically told that she could not use the food cart while at work to support her weight or for assistance for walking. Plaintiff then requested to use a cane at work to assist her when walking and TNG granted her request.

In the meeting, plaintiff avers that she requested to use the food cart as an accommodation to help her walk due to her knee disability. However, according to Baresse, Baranowski and Drank, plaintiff did not request to use the food cart in the meeting to assist her with walking.⁶ In any event, if plaintiff did in fact request to use the food cart as an accommodation to help her with walking, TNG would have denied the request due to safety concerns. Further, TNG allowed plaintiff at all times to continue to use the food cart for its intended purpose of transporting food, kitchen equipment and supplies in the kitchen and around the school.

Despite the fact that TNG had already granted plaintiff's request to usea cane at work at the June 13, 2014 meeting, she contacted her physician, Dr. Kazmierski, on July 24, 2014 and requested a note stating that she could work but required the assistance of a cane. Plaintiff then gave TNG a note from Dr. Kazmierski stating that she "requires assistance of a cane when walking due to a knee injury. This is recommended by me for assistance when working." TNG again allowed plaintiff to use a cane at work and expected that she would indeed use the cane while at work.

Thereafter, plaintiff did in fact use her cane to assist her at work for some time. At no time did plaintiff state that she was unable to perform her duties with her cane or that she needed any other accommodation.

According to plaintiff, in June 2015, Baresse asked her if she was coming back to work for the Fall school term and plaintiff replied "yes, why." Baresse then told plaintiff that she "better be able to walk better and get [her] own stuff." Plaintiff responded that "this is...