Bradley v. Mary Rutan Hosp. Assoc.
| Decision Date | 28 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 02-CV-797.,02-CV-797. |
| Citation | 322 F.Supp.2d 926 |
| Parties | Carol BRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. MARY RUTAN HOSPITAL ASSOC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Gary A. Reeve, Reeve & Watts, Worthington, OH, Patrick Michael Watts, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff.
Lisa Lomax Norris, Allen Kuehnle & Stovall, Scott Evan Williams, Hammond & Sewards, Columbus, OH, for Defendant.
This matter is before the court on several motions. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, although Plaintiff's, Carol Bradley's ("Plaintiff" or "Bradley"), Motion is on the issue of liability only.1 Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Strike Portions of an Affidavit of Timothy Froebe, which was filed in support of Defendant's, Mary Rutan Hospital Association's ("Defendant" or "Mary Rutan"), Motion for Summary Judgement. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and DENIES the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
On February 7, 2000, Mary Rutan hired Bradley as a full-time cook. During her employment, Nyoka Foor ("Foor"), Director of the Dietary Department at Mary Rutan, was Bradley's supervisor. The parties dispute when Foor first became aware of such, but Bradley's husband, Mr. Bradley, has Parkinson's Disease, which requires frequent care-giving from his wife and other family members. During the first year of her employment, before Bradley became eligible for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., she was absent or tardy on at least eight (8) different occasions.2 The parties agree that she received her first oral warning for excessive absenteeism on November 12, 2000.3 Mary Rutan then gave Bradley a second warning on March 8, 2001, and a third reprimand on May 16, 2001. Plaintiff alleges that her absences on March 7, 2001, and those leading up to her third warning were for the purpose of caring for her husband.
The third reprimand resulted in Bradley being issued an Employee Warning Record ("Warning Record"). The Warning Record stated that Bradley formally had been warned of her absenteeism on three prior occasions and that any further absences within the following ninety days may result in termination of her employment. Bradley signed the statement, acknowledging that she read it and understood the consequence that "further misconduct may result in additional discipline up to and including discharge."
On or about June 7, 2001, Mr. Bradley was admitted to Wilson Memorial Hospital after he became severely ill. After his discharge on June 11, 2001, Foor and Bradley discussed Mr. Bradley's Parkinson's Disease, and Foor recommended that Bradley check with Mary Rutan's human resources department to see if she qualified for FMLA leave. Bradley did so, and Mary Rutan approved FMLA leave for Bradley from June 13, 2001, to July 13, 2001. Defendant contends that this was Bradley's first and only request for FMLA leave. Plaintiff argues, however, that Mary Rutan had knowledge of her husband's condition, and her need to care for him, before she accepted employment with Defendant.
On August 28, 2001, Bradley allegedly injured her right hand by hitting it against a salad bar when walking past it. Bradley continued working, though, and did not see a doctor until the next day. On August 29, 2001, Bradley was seen by Doctor Catherine Watkins-Campbell ("Dr.Campbell"), a physician at Mary Rutan. Dr. Campbell diagnosed Bradley as having a right trapezoid strain and contusion to the right hand. She permitted Bradley to go back to work that same day, but restricted her to performing left-handed work only.
Both parties agree that Bradley informed Foor of this restriction on the day that Dr. Campbell prescribed it, although they dispute Foor's reaction and whether Bradley provided Foor with the actual Employee Work Restriction Form. Foor testified that Bradley did not show her "any paperwork which described what a `left-handed job' restriction meant" and that she needed written restrictions from a doctor in order to accommodate Plaintiff. Foor claims to have told Bradley to just perform her job duties that did not require use of her left hand.
Bradley, in contrast, claims that she immediately took the Employee Work Restriction Form to Foor, and that Foor laughed, said there were no left-handed jobs available, and told Bradley that she was headed out of town on a business trip and did not have time to deal with the restrictions. Nevertheless, it is undisputed that Bradley continued to work August 29, 2001, through August 31, 2001, despite the restrictions.
At Bradley's next follow-up appointment with Dr. Campbell on September 4, 2001 while Foor was still away on business, Bradley told the doctor that her job duties had not been modified and that Foor had refused to accommodate the restrictions. Consequently, Dr. Campbell took Bradley off work until her next appointment on September 11, 2001. At the September 11, 2001 appointment, Dr. Campbell extended Bradley's time off, again, until her next appointment on September 25, 2001.4
Meanwhile, Foor returned from her business trip on September 10, 2001, after having been informed by her assistant that Bradley's Employee Work Restriction Status had changed and that she had been taken off work completely. Around this time and without contacting Bradley first to obtain her permission,5 Foor contacted Dr. Campbell directly to inquire about the specifics of Plaintiff's work restrictions. As a result of that discussion, Dr. Campbell provided Foor, via facsimile, with a new, "revised" Employee Work Status Report, which permitted Bradley to return to work on September 13, 2001, to perform restricted, clerical duties.
After receiving the new Employee Work Status Report and trying to contact Bradley at her home to no avail, Foor sent a letter to Plaintiff via certified mail informing her that Mary Rutan had considered Dr. Campbell's restrictions and found that it could accommodate them by placing Bradley in a position at Mary Rutan. The letter requested Bradley to phone Foor as soon as possible to discuss the position and her return date. Upon receiving the letter, Bradley phoned Foor and they met on September 21, 2001, to discuss the special clerical duties Bradley was going to perform at Mary Rutan.
Plaintiff contends that she was never made aware of the contact between Foor and Dr. Campbell and did not know that her restrictions had been changed as a result. Defendant contends that Bradley knew of the "new" restrictions and authorization to return to work on September 13, 2001, either because Bradley picked up a copy of the September 13, 2001, Employee Work Status Report prior to meeting with Foor on September 21, 2001, or because Foor had provided a copy of the new Report to her via certified mail.6
The parties do not dispute that during the meeting Foor instructed Bradley to return to work on September 24, 2001. They also do not dispute that Bradley told Foor that she and/or her husband had appointments that day. Nevertheless, it seems that the two women parted with different understandings. Bradley believed that by asking her to return to work on September 24, 2001, Foor was asking her to violate Dr. Campbell's orders, although apparently Bradley never conveyed that sentiment to Foor during the meeting. In addition, because Bradley allegedly had an appointment(s) to attend on September 24, 2001, she contends that she did not have to return to work, despite Foor's insistence that she do so. Conversely, Foor claims to have believed that Bradley understood that she was to report to work on September 24, 2001 before her appointment(s), for a few hours to try out her new duties, and that Bradley would then be excused from work to attend to her appointment(s).
Plaintiff, however, neither reported to work, nor contacted Mary Rutan on September 24, 2001. On September 25, 2001, Bradley went to her follow-up appointment with Dr. Campbell, and although Dr. Campbell, again, released her back to work on that day, Bradley again did not report to work. Plaintiff claims that when she stopped by after her appointment to drop off the new Work Restriction Form, because it was after the time of her normal work hours and she did not see herself on the schedule, she assumed that she was not expected to work on that day. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that based on the September 21, 2001 meeting, Bradley knew that she was expected to report to work in her new position on September 24, 2001, and every day thereafter.
Regardless, Bradley did not work on September 25, 2001. On September 26, 2001, the first day on which there is no dispute that Bradley was suppose to report to work, she failed to appear. She phoned Mary Rutan to inform Defendant that she was experiencing car trouble and would arrive as soon as possible, but when she phoned a second time and spoke with Foor, Foor informed her that she had been terminated.
The decision to terminate Foor was made sometime prior to September 26, 2001, however, after Foor contacted Timothy Froebe ("Froebe"), the Vice-President of Human Resources at Mary Rutan. Froebe allegedly was the sole decision-maker, and he avers that he made the decision to terminate Plaintiff after Foor phoned him and informed him that Bradley had failed to report to work two days, without calling ("no-call, no-shows"). Based upon this and what Defendant viewed as Bradley's record of excessive absenteeism, Mary Rutan terminated Plaintiff for "abandoning her job."
Bradley filed this lawsuit on August 13, 2002, and filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2003.7 On November 21, 2003, Bradley filed a Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On the same day, Defendant filed its own Motion for Summary Judgment, which included as an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rush v. E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.
...an unlawful manner, as provided in either the statute or regulations[,]’ ” Wysong, 503 F.3d at 446–47 (quoting Bradley v. Mary Rutan Hosp., 322 F.Supp.2d 926, 940 (S.D.Ohio 2004)), there is no evidence of such conduct in this case. Indeed, “ ‘[n]othing in the FMLA prevents employers from en......
-
Wysong v. Dow Chemical Co.
...used the leave against her and in an unlawful manner, as provided in either the statute or regulations." Bradley v. Mary Rutan Hosp., 322 F.Supp.2d 926, 940 (S.D.Ohio 2004). Although this language is different from the language used in Cavin, it does not conflict with Cavin, and, in fact, a......
-
Dage v. Time Warner Cable
...a theory of retaliatory harassment by failing to address this theory in responsive briefing. See, e.g., Bradley v. Mary Rutan Hosp. Assoc., 322 F.Supp.2d 926, 931 n. 7 (S.D.Ohio 2004); Kattar v. Three Rivers Area Hosp. Auth., 52 F.Supp.2d 789, 798 n. 7 (W.D.Mich.1999); Jones v. Allercare, 2......
-
Harrison v. Proctor & Gamble Distrib., LLC
...an unlawful manner, as provided in either the statute or regulations." Id. (citing Wysong, supra , and Bradley v. Mary Rutan Hosp., 322 F.Supp.2d 926, 940 (S. D. Ohio 2004) (Marbley, J.) ). Under 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c), "employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in ......