FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action for wrongful termination. The original complaint, filed in the Butte County Superior Court in December 2017, was removed to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction. See ECF No. 1 (Notice of Removal). Defendant contends the matter presents a federal question because Plaintiff's claims require substantial interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement between an employer and a union, which is governed under the Labor Management Relations Act. See id. at 3.
Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended complaint. See ECF No. 62.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
I. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS This action proceeds on Plaintiff's second amended complaint against Defendant Enloe Medical Center. See ECF No. 61. According to Plaintiff, the action arises from "retaliation against PLAINTIFF for reporting a patient safety concern and possible misconduct." Id. at 1. Plaintiff states he was employed as a "CT Technologist Assistant" in the Radiology Department for nearly eleven years. Id. at 2. On the morning of November 25, 2015, Plaintiff states he "discovered what he believed was a severe safety concern involving a vulnerable ER patient with a documented. . . . severe allergy to Iodinated IV Contrast Media. . . ." Id. Plaintiff states the patient had just undergone a CT scan involving an IV injection of this contract media just moments before. See ECF No. 61, pg. 2. Plaintiff next states:
PLAINTIFF reported to what he in good faith believed to be, the proper chain of command, the on-duty attending Emergency Room Nurse, Ordering ER Physician, Attending Radiologist, and RN House Supervisor, with whom he also voiced concern of future retaliatory action for reporting the safety concern.
Id.
According to Plaintiff, on November 25, 2015, he had been asked to "help at the Front Desk area." Id. Plaintiff appears to deny that he was ever formally reassigned and states that he had never been "reassigned" during his tenure with Defendant Enloe Medical Center. See id.
Plaintiff alleges that at all times on November 25, 2015, he had lawful authority and reason to access patient records "for patient treatment, payment, or healthcare operations." Id. He adds that "[a]ll medical records accessed on November 25, 2015, were only in the line of his duty to 'patient treatment, payment, or healthcare operations including, the select five patients EMC alleges he accessed in violation of medical privacy or HIPAA.'" Id. at 2-3 (italics in original).
Next, Plaintiff states that Defendant acted in bad faith "with unknown ulterior motives" in "suppressing the truth" by denying him access to the Radiology Department Manager or Director during the initial internal investigation into his access of patient records on November 25, 2015. Id. Plaintiff also claims Defendant's upper management "intentionally avoided having the PLAINTIF's direct supervising Manager and Director over him present during theinvestigation." ECF No. 61, pg. 3. Plaintiff further contends Defendant acted in bad faith "when declining to meet with the mediator during the Union grievance process." Id.
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant wrongly denied him access to unemployment benefits, alleging Plaintiff was terminated for misconduct. See id. According to Plaintiff, he ultimately prevailed in his unemployment appeal to the State of California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, which ruled that Plaintiff "was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with his most recent work." Id. at 3-4 (citing a March 18, 2016, decision in case no. 5656295).
Plaintiff alleges the following more specific facts:
1. Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant Enloe Medical Center on February 1, 2005, as a Computerized Tomography Technologist Assistant (CT Tech Assistant). Seeid. at 9.
2. At that time, Plaintiff was assigned to the CT Department within the Radiology Department, where he "officially remained" through the date of termination. Id.
3. Plaintiff was never reassigned to any other duty classification or department. Seeid.
4. Plaintiff's supervisors were Radiology Director P. Pooley and Radiology Manager J. Crawford. Seeid. at 10.
5. S. Fredricks was never Plaintiff's supervisor and Plaintiff was never his employee. Seeid.
6. On the day of November 25, 2015, both the Radiology Manager and Radiology Supervisor left early in the afternoon. Seeid.
7. On November 25, 2015, S. Fredricks was the Lead Computerized Tomography Technologist. Seeid.
8. S. Fredricks was without managerial or supervisorial control of anyone - including Plaintiff - in the Radiology Department.
9. On November 25, 2015, Plaintiff and two other CT Techs - G. Mayfield and P. Davis - were assigned to the Radiology Department. Seeid.
10. Plaintiff's regular duties included accessing patient information, screening select information, printing reports, documenting and processing exam orders, and coordinating patient transport. Seeid. at 11.
11. At all times, Plaintiff was subject to Enloe Medical Center's "Health Care Compliance Program - Code of Conduct." Id.12. The Code of Conduct required Plaintiff to "report suspected misconduct." ECF No. 61, pg. 12.
13. Enloe Medical Center employees have entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the United Healthcare Workers - West effective July 1, 2015. Seeid. at 13.
14. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was a union member subject to the collective bargaining agreement. Seeid.
15. On November 25, 2015, G. Mayfield asked Plaintiff to assist an overwhelmed colleague at the front desk area with high call volume. Seeid.
16. G. Mayfield had no managerial or supervisorial control over Plaintiff on November 25, 2015. Seeid.
17. Plaintiff was never informed by anyone that, during the time he was assisting at the front desk, he would not also remain responsible for his primary duties. Seeid.
18. The first time Plaintiff was ever informed that management considered his role at the front desk a "reassignment" was on December 5, 2015, during an interview with C. Linscheid, the Vice President of Human Resources and Chief Compliance Officer, and B. Boggs, the Risk and Compliance Manager and Privacy Officer. Seeid.
19. At no time on November 25, 2015, was Plaintiff ever informed that he was being "reassigned" to the front desk. Seeid. at 14.
20. The "Front Desk" is not a title, duty, or position, but a room containing a U-shaped wooden desk. Seeid.
21. Patient Support Clerks who normally sit at the "front desk" have the same limited access to the Patient Care Information System. Seeid.
22. At no time on November 25, 2015, was Plaintiff ever informed that a request for his assistance at the front desk would mean that he no longer had responsibilities regarding patient flow in the CT area. Id. at 14.
23. Plaintiff was never "floated" to a "temporary assignment" within the meaning of the collective bargaining agreement. Seeid. at 15.
24. Plaintiff was never provided the required two-week orientation for "temporary assignment" at the front desk area of the Radiology Department. Seeid.
25. Mayfield had no authority to transfer or assign Plaintiff to a different department or job. Seeid.
26. Upon accepting additional tasks at the front desk, Plaintiff continued his responsibilities at a CT Tech Assistant. Seeid.
27. On November 25, 2015, Plaintiff accessed confidential patient information "for more than nine patients to verify readiness, allergies, prior exams, pregnancy, previous visits, or requested reports, and printed disks in the same manner he always did. ECF No. 61, pg. 16.
28. In Plaintiff's mind, he had the same duties as always and had the same access to patient information as he always did. Seeid.
29. At 11:42 a.m. on November 25, 2015, Plaintiff notified ER patient #3775's nurse that Lead CT S. Fredricks "may have made a potentially dangerous error, by injecting Iodinated IV Contrast Media into patient #3775 without acknowledging or documenting the severe allergy to Iodinated IV Contrast Media listed in the medical chart. Seeid.
30. Plaintiff noted that the accompanying documentation for patient #3775 was incomplete and lacked post-procedure stats and vital signs, which was a clear violation of Enloe Medical Center's policy, procedure, and standard protocol. Seeid. at 16-17.
31. Plaintiff was aware of and had handled the exam requisition for patient #3775 ordered at 10:06 a.m. on November 25, 2015, before being asked to help the front desk area. Seeid. at 17.
32. Plaintiff was first alerted to the potential safety concern when he noticed a recently performed exam on patient #3775 was not correctly processed and transferred to the Radiology reading room at approximately 11:37 a.m.; the exam had been performed at approximately 11:19a.m. Id.
33. Plaintiff states that he was a member in good standing of the union when he was terminated. Seeid.
34. Plaintiff states that he was terminated on December 11, 2015, for "unlawful privacy breach" stemming from his access of patient records on November 25, 2015. Id.
35. Plaintiff appealed the denial of unemployment benefits and, on March 18, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Keith Sakimura determined that Plaintiff "was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with his most recent work." Id. at 18 (citing Ruling of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board in case no. 5656295).
36. Plaintiff states he attempted to pursue a grievance through the union, but that Enloe Medical Center declined to participate in mediation. Seeid.
37. Plaintiff states his grievance was ultimately withdrawn by the union because it concluded "WEIU UHW ("the Union") does not believe that we are likely to prevail in arbitration. . . ." Id. at 18-19.
...
