Wright v. Shore Mem'l Hosp.

DIERDRA WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. SHORE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants.

Civil No. 11-5583 (JBS/AMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Dated: November 19, 2013

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

OPINION

APPEARANCES:

Jeremy M. Cerutti, Esq.

Ari R. Karpf, Esq.

Christine Elaine Burke, Esq.

Paul Calvin Lantis, Esq.

KARPF, KARPF & CERUTTI, P.C.

Counsel for Plaintiff

Julie Holland Kinkopf, Esq.

Richard J. De Fortuna, Esq.

PAISNER LITVIN LLC

Counsel for Defendant

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Deirdra Wright alleges that her employer, Defendant Shore Memorial Hospital ("SMH"), interfered with her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq., and ultimately fired her in violation of that statute and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"),N.J.S.A. § 10:5-2.1, et seq. Defendants SMH and Edward Quigley, Plaintiff's supervisor, contend that Plaintiff was terminated because she was demeaning and disrespectful to a patient, which Defendants characterized as "gross misconduct." Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. [Docket Item 25.]

The key inquiries for the Court are (1) whether there is evidence that Plaintiff suffered prejudice as a result of Defendants' alleged interference, (2) whether there is evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that Plaintiff has met her burden to show that Defendants' proffered reason for her termination was pretextual, and (3) whether Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of age or disability discrimination. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

II. Background

Plaintiff Wright worked as a registrar in the Patient Access Department of SMH from 2002 until May 10, 2011. (Def. Statement of Material Facts ("SMF") [Docket Item 26] ¶ 2-3.) Registrars register patients, assist patients and hospital staff in other ways, and are often the first point of contact patients have with the hospital. (Id. ¶ 11; Pl. Ex. D.) On May 29, 2009, Plaintiff sustained injuries to her back and eye in a motor vehicle accident. (SMF ¶ 69; Pl. Counter-Statement of Undisputed Facts ("CSF") [Docket Item 31] ¶ 35.) Over the course of the followingtwo years, up until her termination, Plaintiff requested several different medical leaves of absence related to her injuries and a change in work schedule, which were granted. (Wright Dep. at 140:20-141:6.) On May 10, 2011, she was terminated, purportedly for making insensitive remarks to a patient, identified in the motion briefs as C.W., who complained about Plaintiff to SMH. Plaintiff disputes the substance of C.W.'s allegations against her, and asserts that SMH's investigation into the incident was incomplete and her termination was pretextual.

A. Plaintiff's medical leave history

Plaintiff first requested intermittent leave¹ from October 27, 2009, through January 1, 2010, to attend doctor's appointments arising from her accident. (Id. ¶ 81; Def. Ex. U.) SMH granted Plaintiff's request on November 3, 2009, and told Plaintiff that she must submit a doctor's note to the human resources department for each work day she missed under the intermittent leave. (SMF ¶¶ 81-82.)

Plaintiff submitted a second request immediately thereafter, on November 4, 2009, for leave related to "blaspharospasm treatment," noting that "treatment is every 3 months," beginning on "12/3/09." (Def. Ex. V.) The request was approved, with the notation that "Intermittent LOA [leave of absence] ends 1 yearfrom the start of first int. LOA." (Id.)

Plaintiff submitted another request on November 9, 2009, for a specific procedure that was scheduled for November 20 through November 22, 2009. (Def. Ex. W.) The request was granted. (Id.) Plaintiff experienced complications with her treatment and needed more time off. (Wright Dep. at 160:5-13.) She testified that she got the impression that Edward Quigley, her manager, was about to, or wanted to, "write me up, but he didn't" and that Quigley told her that "you're supposed to be here. Like, you can't leave. You can't go to this appointment." (Id. at 160:6-9; 162:3-11.) Plaintiff further testified that she went over Quigley's head to get permission for additional time off from another supervisor, "Kelly." (Id. 162:7-11.) Plaintiff was told she needed to obtain additional doctors' notes to justify any time off that had not been included in the November 9 leave request, which she did, and Plaintiff testified that there was no "interference" with the leave between November 20 and 22, 2009, and no problems once she obtained doctors notes. (Id. at 161:7-17.)

Plaintiff submitted two more requests on March 31, 2010: one for intermittent leave from April 15, 2010, through July 15, 2010, for treatment with Dr. Zied (Def. Ex. X; SMF ¶ 92), and the other for intermittent leave from April 1, 2010, through October 1, 2010, for evaluations every six months at Temple Lung Center (Def. Ex. Y; SMF ¶ 94). The requests were granted. (Def. Exs. X &

Y.)

Plaintiff alleges that on June 5, 2009, Mr. Quigley wrote down notes summarizing a discussion he had with Plaintiff. (Pl. Ex. T.) The note is unsigned and does not give any indication of authorship. (Id.) Quigley testified that he did not recognize the note, that he did not know who had drafted it and that he could not recall a discussion with Plaintiff about changes in her shift.² (Quigley Dep. at 74:14-75:1.) The note summarizes a discussion about Plaintiff's shifts, and then adds that Plaintiff

stated that she had to leave work at 4pm to make a series of doctor's appointment [sic] starting this coming Monday. I was disappointed that this was not more of a request than a statement of what she needed to have happen but we agreed that she could leave early and not take lunch.

(Pl. Ex. T.)

On June 25, 2010, Plaintiff submitted a request for reduced schedule leave, which permitted her to work Monday, Wednesday and Friday beginning June 28, 2010 through September 28, 2010. (Def. Ex. Z.) The request was granted, and Kathleen Nunzi, the benefits/employee relations manager, added a notation to therequest form that Plaintiff had used 395.5 hours during the previous 12 months for intermittent leave. (Id.)

In mid-July 2010, Mr. Quigley and Ms. Nunzi exchanged a series of e-mails concerning Plaintiff. Quigley initiated the conversation:

Since we have started her reduced schedule under her LOA she has called out 3 out of the 7 days she was scheduled to work. It was my understand [sic] that the point of the reduced schedule was to help her work at least these three days. It seems to me that this arrangement is not work [sic] either. I am not sure if we can take anymore [sic] steps.

(Pl. Ex. V.) On July 21, 2010, Quigley sent another e-mail to Nunzi stating that

I don't mean to seem impatient, but Dee Wright has called out on her LOA two of her scheduled days. She has not been to work since 7/13/10. In my opinion this is really becoming a burden on this department. Is she providing notes for all those days? Is there anything else we can do?

(Id.) Ms. Nunzi responded that she did not see doctors' notes in Plaintiff's folder and inquired which dates Plaintiff had missed since starting her reduced schedule. (Id.) Quigley replied that, in the three weeks that Plaintiff had been working a reduced work schedule, she had been absent five additional days, and provided the dates.³ (Id.) Alicia Waugh, a registrar who worked alongside Plaintiff, testified that once she heard Quigley say that Plaintiff was "out again" and his tone "didn't seem to be one of satisfaction." (Waugh Dep. at 15:14-16:6.)

Plaintiff sought new intermittent leave for an additional three months, to begin on September 28, 2010. (Def. Ex. BB.) Plaintiff attached to her request documentation from Dr. Adam J. Benn, D.C., who explained that Plaintiff is "only able to work 3 days a week." (Id.) The request was "denied," with an accompanying letter from Ms. Nunzi, who explained that the new request "coincides with a request already in place." (Id.) Nunzi added that: "the reduced schedule leave that you are currently on is extended to November 12, 2010 per the medical documentation attached to the request form." (Id.) The documentation Nunzi relied upon was a note dated August 12, 2010, from Dr. Zeid, who wrote that "it would be beneficial for the above patient to work 3 days a week for the next 3 months." (Def. Ex. CC.) The parties agree that this leave request was "duplicative" and the original leave was extended as requested. (SMF ¶ 101; Pl. Response to SMF ¶ 101.)

On October 20, 2010, Ms. Nunzi met with Plaintiff. The parties have different impressions of the meeting. Nunzi commemorated the discussion in a letter to Plaintiff on October 28, 2010. (Def. Ex. AA.) Nunzi noted that Plaintiff's reduced work schedule had been approved in June, but that the "issue" was that

you are calling out of work on the days that you are scheduled to work, either on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday. We discussed that if you are unable to meet the specification of this leave, it will be terminated and you will need to reapply for a different leave ofabsence.

If your physician feels that you are unable to work the above mentioned schedule, you have the following options. You may reapply for a reduced schedule leave allowing you to work two days per week; or a leave allowing you to work one day per week. As you know, a reduced leave must be mutually agreed upon. If you are unable to work any days, you may apply for a full medical leave of absence and apply to the State of New Jersey for disability.

(Id.) Plaintiff got the impression that she was "given an ultimatum by human resources when they told her she could no longer take intermittent FMLA leave because Defendants would not know when she would be coming to work. Instead, they told her that she could either take a reduced schedule leave or go out on disability." (Pl. Response to SMF ¶ 99.)⁴

In late October, Dr....