Baggett v. Barnett
| Decision Date | 07 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:12CV00526 JLH,4:12CV00526 JLH |
| Parties | PAM BAGGETT PLAINTIFF v. BRIAN BARNETT, individually and in his official capacity; UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES by and through the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS; and JOHN ED ANTHONY, CARL JOHNSON, JANE ROGERS, SAM HILBURN, MIKE AKIN, JIM VON GREMP, JOHN TYSON, BEN HYNEMAN, DAVID PRYOR, and MARK WALDRIP, in their official capacities as members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Pam Baggett brings this action against Brian Barnett, individually and in his official capacity as the administrator of the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, and against the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences by and through individual members of the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas in their official capacities. The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the motion is granted.
The Department of Internal Medicine encompasses nine academic divisions and one administrative division. Baggett became employed as a bookkeeper for the administrative division in November 1981. Over the years Baggett took on greater responsibilities. By 2003, Baggett held the position of associate administrator for accounting, one of three department-level associate administrator positions. Baggett reported directly to the administrator of the Department of InternalMedicine, and in turn, had two employees who reported to her—Judy Whaley, a grants administrator, and Joyce Hummel, a clinical trials accountant. The Department of Internal Medicine operated at a deficit every year that Baggett was employed there. The continual charge from Debra Fiser, Dean of the College of Medicine, to Dr. James Marsh, the chairman of the Department of Internal Medicine, was to decrease the deficit by allowing certain positions that come open to go unfilled, to cut unnecessary faculty travel, to improve billing processes, and to increase income. Document #21-1 at dep. p. 53; Document #38 at 8.
In July 2003, Brent McKay was the administrator of the Department of Internal Medicine. At that time, Baggett asked McKay to place her on an 80%-time work schedule to allow her to deal with certain medical issues. Document #21-1 at 34; id. at dep. p. 29. McKay granted Baggett's request to go to a part-time work schedule as of August 1, 2003. Document #21-3 at 27. McKay reduced Baggett's yearly salary by 20% to $40,394.00. Document #21-1 at 35. However, McKay chose to keep Baggett listed in the payroll and benefits system as a full-time employee. Baggett asked McKay to change her full-time listing to an 80%-time listing several times, and McKay always refused. Document #21-1 at dep. p. 30. McKay told Baggett not to worry about it and that if it ever became an issue, he would take care of it. McKay also told her that, as far as he was concerned, she was working from home one day a week. Id. Baggett had home access to every system she used at work, and she told McKay that she was working at home one day a week and would continue to do so as long as McKay had her listed in the system at 100% time. Document #21-1 at dep. p. 30.
Baggett's department-level administrative responsibilities included, in part, notifying division-level administrators of errors in requisitions that they submitted. At McKay's direction, Baggett's communications with division-level administrators was at times ungracious, to-the-point, andimpossible to misunderstand. Document #37 at 23 ¶ 55 resp. Baggett was known for her abrasive and demanding personality by those who worked with her. See, e.g., Documents #21-4 at 1 ¶ 2; #21-5 at 1 ¶ 2; #21-6 at 1 ¶¶ 2, 3; #21-7 at 1 ¶ 2. Most division-level administrators did not care to hear from Baggett because it meant either that they or their staff would likely have more work to do as a result of their error or failure to meet a deadline. Document #37 at 23 ¶ 55 resp. McKay instructed Baggett to remove erroneous requisitions from the accounting office's waiting queue until division-level administrators corrected their mistakes and resubmitted the requisitions. Id. at 25 ¶ 58 resp. For a while, McKay instructed Baggett to remove the requisitions from the queue and send them back to the division-level administrators without explanation, in hope that they would discover their errors on their own. Id. at 26 ¶ 58 resp. This policy was met with resistance from division-level administrators, so McKay instructed Baggett to return to removing the requisitions from the queue and pointing out errors for correction. Id.
McKay became ill, and he died in April 2010. Baggett told Susan Leon, an employee of the Dean's office, of her work arrangement under McKay and asked her for advice regarding what needed to be done. Accruing full-time leave and benefits while working part-time was contrary to UAMS policy. See Document #21-3 at 11-17. Baggett stated that even though she had been working full time she would be glad to pay back the value of 20% of the full-time benefits she had enjoyed for the previous seven years in order to clear her good name. Document #21-1 at dep. p. 32. Brian Barnett was hired as McKay's replacement in September 2010. On November 3, 2010, Barnett became aware that Baggett had been driving into work only four days a week while receiving full time leave and benefits for the previous seven years. Document #21-3 at 6. Barnett discussed the situation with Steve Wood, the director of human resources for the College of Medicine, and they came up with twooptions: either Baggett could take a 20% decrease in the payroll system and a 20% reduction in both salary and benefits to continue her work arrangement under McKay or she could immediately return to driving into work five days a week. Document # 21-3 at 7. Baggett chose to return to driving into work five days a week.
Barnett advised Baggett that the department would not be able to increase her salary immediately and that she would need to come up with a job description for her position to be reclassified at a higher salary. Document #21-3 at 7. On November 4, 2010, Baggett provided Barnett with an job description, which Barnett found acceptable. Id. On November 18, 2010, Barnett met with Baggett again. During that meeting they discussed Baggett's need to understand and assist in the analysis and interpretation of financial reports, her need to adopt an improved demeanor and a customer-service attitude, and her need to get along well with Suzanne Holland, the department-level associate administrator of human resources. Id. Barnett told Baggett that he envisioned her serving as the chief financial officer for the department and taking on certain duties that had traditionally been the responsibility of the department administrator. Document #21-1 at dep. p. 38. Baggett stated that she would be glad to learn any new skills that were necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the position.
Barnett later received news that only four days after this conversation, Baggett had offended a programmer who was working to get her access to the new reports. Document # 23-1 at 7. Around this time, Barnett expressed concern about Baggett's ability to perform her assigned duties to Audrey Bradley, the Campus Employee Relations Manager. Document #21-3 at 1. Someone showed Baggett how to complete the reports that Barnett requested and where to obtain the necessary information. Id. at 7. Baggett took initiative in working on the reports, which she completed for Barnett's review.Id. The reports were well done, and Barnett and Baggett discussed when the reports should be completed in the ordinary course of business. Id.
On December 2, 2010, Baggett completed her assigned reports without realizing that they needed to include two sources of revenue that had not yet posted. Later that day, Barnett called Baggett into his office, sharply reprimanded her, and gave her a verbal warning for her error, which he said fell short of "demonstrat[ing] the ability to review, analyze, and interpret the reports as written and expected in her job description." Id. at 7-8. Barnett informed Baggett that he "felt the magnitude and type of error demonstrated in the completion of an inaccurate report was enough of a concern in her ability to complete her job duties as agreed upon that [he] would proceed to a written warning with the next occurrence." Id. at 8.
On December 10, 2010, Baggett sent an email to Barnett to ask what was being done to restore her full-time salary. Barnett responded with the following message:
Id. at 10. Baggett responded with an email that stated, in pertinent part: Id. at 9. Baggett stated that she had written Dr. Marsh and that if nothing were done she would meet with Steve Wood, the humanresources manager for the College of Medicine. Baggett stated, "If the Dean's office can't fix this, then I will go to Personnel and let whatever happens, happen." Id. Barnett interpreted Baggett's response as a request to appeal his assessment, and he...
To continue reading
Request your trial