Tierney v. Geisinger Sys. Servs.

CECELIA TIERNEY, Plaintiff v. GEISINGER SYSTEM SERVICES and GEISINGER WYOMINGVALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-1048

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

October 16, 2020

JUDGE MANNION

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the court, in this age and disability discrimination action filed by plaintiff Cecelia Tierney, is a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 filed by defendants Geisinger System Services and Geisinger Wyoming Valley ("Geisinger" or "defendants"), (Doc. 33). Plaintiff, a former gift shop volunteer with defendants, alleges that she was unlawfully denied a paid position with defendants due to her disability and her age. Based upon the court's review of the motion and related materials, the defendants' motion will be GRANTED with respect to all of plaintiff's claims since the defendants undisputedly had legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for not hiring plaintiff and there is no genuine issue for trial that the failure of defendants to hire plaintiff was pretext for age and disability discrimination.

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiff filed the instant action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. §621, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §12131, et seq., as well as under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, ("PHRA"), 43 P.S. §951, et seq.¹ Plaintiff also seeks declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§2201, et seq., seeking the court to declare that defendants' alleged practices and policies were discriminatory and in violation of the ADA and ADEA. Further, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief asking the court to enjoin defendants from violating the ADA and ADEA and, directing defendants to immediately appoint her to the gift shop clerk position.

Plaintiff filed her original complaint on June 14, 2017. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2017. (Doc. 3). Specifically, in Count I, plaintiff raises her claim under the ADA alleging that defendantsdiscriminated against her and did not hire her for the position of gift shop clerk in July 2016 based on her disability, namely a traumatic brain injury. In Count II, plaintiff raises her ADEA claim alleging that she was not hired by defendants due to her age, i.e., 68 years old, and that a substantially younger and less qualified person, Sheila Moore, was hired for the position. In Count III, plaintiff raises her similar state law disability discrimination claim under the PHRA. Finally, in Count IV, plaintiff asserts an age discrimination claim under the PHRA.

After completing discovery, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all of plaintiff's claims, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56,² on July 15, 2019. (Doc. 33). The motion was then briefed. Also, defendants filed a statement of material facts and plaintiff filed a response, and plaintiff filed a counterstatement of facts and defendants filed a response to it. Further, the parties filed exhibits.

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 FACTS³

1. Plaintiff's Disability

The undisputed facts, as supported by the record, establish that the plaintiff, born on November 25, 1947, was involved in a motor vehicle accident on August 19, 2000, and suffered a head trauma and brain injury. As a result of the injury, plaintiff has a major physiological impairment.

At the time of her injury, plaintiff worked as a property researcher for Priority Search in Kingston, Pennsylvania. Her duties included entering completed title reports into the computer system, completing deed research for properties to be sold, and delivering and reviewing reports with the title agency.

Due to her brain injury, plaintiff applied for disability insurance benefits ("SSDI") with the Social Security Administration ("SSA") on October 5, 2000, claiming that she "became unable to work because of my disabling conditionon August 19, 2000", and that she was "still disabled." In her application for SSDI, plaintiff also agreed to notify SSA "if my condition improves so that I would be able to work."

Plaintiff's SSDI application was granted by SSA in March 2004, and "[she] has received Social Security disability income since the date of her traumatic brain injury [i.e., her onset disability date of August 19, 2000]" through 2013. In 2013, when plaintiff became 66 years old, her SSDI automatically converted to age retirement Social Security benefits. The amounts of her benefits however remained the same.

During the time she was receiving SSDI, plaintiff submitted periodic disability reports to SSA regarding her condition and her eligibility for continued SSDI. In those reports, including the one she signed on March 25, 2004, plaintiff made the following representations regarding her disability:

(a) "I do not cook my own meals."

(b) "I must rest ½ hour between tasks."

(c) "I can only stand for a while with a cane."

(d) Her trash was picked up at her door twice per week.

(e) She had to stop "all physical activities, such as long walks, runs, lifting, pulling, pushing" - stating "I have a hard time walking - stairs are hard. I cannot lift my feet well."

(f) She claimed to get exhausted after climbing 5 steps.

(g) "I cannot do anything physical without the need to rest."

(h) She cannot use knife and fork well due to her impaired left side.

(i) She cannot fasten buttons.

(j) "I cannot do small tasks with right hand. I cannot type, do needlework etc."

(k) "I have difficulty in communications my thoughts or expressing myself."

(l) "I do get forgetful - I may miss [appointments]. I may get confused with instructions etc."

(m) "I have trouble with written or oral instructions. I often can get confused."

(n) She could walk without assistance, but "no more than 300 feet."

(o) "I find it hard to concentrate and engage in physical activity."

However, plaintiff's abilities subsequently improved with effort and training.

Plaintiff had a driver's license and was able to drive. Plaintiff also used a cane to walk.

In her deposition, plaintiff testified that after she began receiving SSDI from SSA she did not recall ever notifying SSA that her medical condition improved to the point she was able to seek employment. Nor did she evertell SSA that she was no longer disabled or that she was better. Further, plaintiff does not dispute that her medical condition has not improved since the date that Social Security granted her SSDI application.

However, after plaintiff began receiving SSDI, she continued working for Priority Search, in a reduced capacity to stay within the income limits allowed for SSDI recipients from 2002 until 2008, when Priority Search closed.

From 2008 through 2012, plaintiff volunteered with her church and provided transportation for people who needed rides to go shopping, for medical appointments, or to eat out.

From 2012 to 2013, plaintiff volunteered with Goodwill Industries.

Also, in 2012, plaintiff applied to the Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation ("OVR"), which is within the Pennsylvania Department of Labor, for assistance. OVR referred plaintiff for a neuropsychological evaluation with Dr. Michael Raymond of the Heinz Rehab Hospital. Dr. Raymond was well qualified and experienced to perform such evaluations since he was the primary neuropsychologist for OVR since 1986 and had performed numerous evaluations for OVR over the years. In fact, after plaintiff's accident, Dr. Raymond evaluated plaintiff in 2001 to determine her"neurocognitive capabilities" and her "ability to perform certain tasks either in the workplace or in school."

In his 2012 report for OVR after reevaluating plaintiff, Dr. Raymond concluded "[u]nfortunately, given her chronic and rather significant cognitive limitations, it might not be feasible for her to obtain gainful employment."

In his deposition taken in the instant case, Dr. Raymond stated that he compared plaintiff's 2001 evaluation to her 2012 evaluation. Specifically, Dr. Raymond testified that after her August 2000 accident, plaintiff had "no noteworthy or significant interval improvement in her general level of neurocognitive deficiency", and that plaintiff's testing showed "significantly reduced executive functions which coincides with brain damage and the type of brain injury that she had." Dr. Raymond also testified that plaintiff's reduced functions would prevent her from "processing information quickly, abstract reasoning, [and] completing tasks in a timely fashion." The doctor further stated that plaintiff suffered from reduced memory problems with mathematics and computation, and that it "would be somewhat difficult" for plaintiff to accurately count money and to balance and operate a cash register.

2. Plaintiff's Position with Geisinger's Volunteer Program

On December 10, 2013, plaintiff began working for Geisinger as a volunteer through the Mature Workers Program ("MWP") administered by the Area Agency on Aging for Luzerne-Wyoming Counties. Plaintiff worked for Geisinger as a volunteer through February 2017. Plaintiff volunteered at Geisinger's gift shop in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. MWP is part of a federally funded program in which individuals, who are paid stipends by the Program, are placed in volunteer positions with Host Agency, such as Geisinger, to gain work experience and skills so that eventually they may be able to get employment which is not subsidized by the Program. The Host Agency provides supervision, training, and a safe worksite for participants/volunteers.

The Host Agency Agreement between Geisinger and Senior Community Services Implement Program of the National Council on Aging (the predecessor to the MWP) provided:

Host agencies agree to give serious consideration for any permanent job openings in the agency to qualified assigned participants. Failure to consider qualified

...