Bryant v. Rolling Hills Hosp., LLC

Decision Date23 December 2011
Docket NumberCivil No. 3:10–cv–00922.
Citation836 F.Supp.2d 591
PartiesMarilyn BRYANT, Deanna Newton, and Cynthia Medley, Plaintiffs, v. ROLLING HILLS HOSPITAL, LLC, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Douglas B. Janney, III, Stephen W. Grace, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiffs.

Bahar Azhdari, Mark W. Peters, Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP, Nashville, TN, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM CONCERNING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFFS MARILYN BRYANT AND DEANNA NEWTON

ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge.

The defendant has submitted motions for summary judgment with supporting memoranda as to plaintiffs Marilyn Bryant (Docket Nos. 20 and 21) and Deanna Newton (Docket Nos. 27 and 28), to which the plaintiffs filed a consolidated opposition (Docket No. 32), and in support of which the defendant filed a consolidated reply (Docket No. 37).1

BACKGROUND

Rolling Hills Hospital is a private, acute psychiatric facility for adolescent, adult, and geriatric patients.2 Plaintiffs Bryant and Newton (Plaintiffs) formerly worked at the hospital as employees of the defendant, Rolling Hills Hospital, LLC (Rolling Hills). The Plaintiffs were both hired by Rolling Hills in June 2009 and both ceased working at Rolling Hills in September 2010. The Plaintiffs contend that Rolling Hills discriminated against them on the basis of race and retaliated against them for complaining about perceived racial discrimination, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”).3

I. Marilyn Bryant

On June 8, 2009, Rolling Hills hired Bryant as a full-time Registered Nurse. In mid-November 2010, Bryant suffered a knee injury at the workplace that required surgery. She asked for and received a personal medical leave of absence beginning November 17, 2009. She did not return to work until February 10, 2010.

At an unspecified point before January 13, 2010—presumably no later than November 17, 2009, when Bryant took her leave—Bryant alleges that three Caucasian co-workers on one of her shifts, including a nurse named Cherie Irwin, refused to permit Bryant to participate in deciding which nurse would lead their shift. Bryant became upset because these co-workers, in her opinion, had exhibited a history of insubordination to supervision by African–Americans. After Bryant complained,Irwin reported Bryant to Chief Nursing Officer (“CNO”) Nancy Reedy, who convened a meeting with Bryant. In that meeting, Reedy questioned Bryant about why Bryant was not acting as a “team player.” Bryant alleges that she complained to Reedy that her white co-workers did not want her (Bryant) in charge because she was African–American. Although Rolling Hills disputes that Bryant expressed any concerns about racial discrimination during this meeting, the record contains no testimony from Reedy.

In December 2009, while she was on leave, Bryant testified before a Tennessee Human Rights Commission (“THRC”) investigator concerning a charge of racial discrimination filed against Rolling Hills by Angela Norman, an African–American co-worker. Although the THRC charge filed by Norman apparently contained a page listing Bryant as a witness, Rolling Hills did not receive notice from the THRC that Bryant was participating in the THRC investigation, 4 nor did Bryant independently make Rolling Hills aware of her involvement.

Later in December 2009, after testifying before the THRC, Bryant called Rolling Hills' corporate office to complain about racial discrimination against her. Bryant spoke with an individual named “Elizabeth,” who told her that Rolling Hills did not handle complaints of this nature at a corporate level and that she needed to speak with someone in human resources at the facility where she worked. Bryant did not contact anyone in the HR department at the Rolling Hills Hospital at that time.

On February 10, 2010, Bryant returned to work. At her request, she returned as a practicing registered nurse (“PRN”), rather than as a full-time nurse. Unlike full-time nurses, a PRN is not guaranteed a minimum number of hours per week.

On February 15, 2010, Bryant called in seeking to be excused from her shift becauseof inclement weather, fearing that she might re-injure her knee if she attempted to travel to work with “ice on the ground.” (Docket No. 36, Attach. 1, Bryant Deposition (“Bryant Dep.”), at 106:6–12.) Rolling Hills has an inclement weather policy, which requires that employees report to work even in inclement weather to ensure proper staffing for its various units. After Bryant sought to be excused from work, then-CNO Angela Klinikowski, one of Bryant's supervisors, immediately issued a written counseling to Bryant, citing her for violating the inclement weather policy. The write-up made no mention that Bryant had called in to report her absence, nor did it mention the basis for which Bryant had sought to be excused. Bryant did not receive any demotion, suspension, or loss in pay from this write-up, although the counseling notes that “any further infractions may result in progressive disciplinary action to include termination.” (Docket No. 36, Attach. 8 at Ex. 5.) Rolling Hills testified that it has no record that any other employee violated or was written up for violating the inclement weather policy.

On an unspecified date in February 2010, Klinikowski also loudly reprimanded Bryant in front of her co-workers. Bryant was dealing with a psychotic patient who had struck an employee. In an apparent attempt to control the patient, Bryant issued a pointed verbal command to the patient to “stop.” Klinikowski then loudly reprimanded Bryant in front of her co-workers, stating that Bryant should not have yelled at the patient. Bryant believed the verbal reprimand to be unjustified and had never heard Klinikowski issue a reprimand to a Caucasian nurse, including Irwin, under similar circumstances. Bryant then consulted with her training instructor, who assured her that she appropriately had dealt with the patient as she had been trained to do.

Bryant worked eighteen shifts between February 10, 2010 and April 20, 2010, after which Rolling Hills did not schedule her to work any shifts until July 7, 2010, a span of approximately ten weeks. Bryant made multiple calls to two of her supervisors, seeking to determine why her shifts had been eliminated and to express that she was “ready, willing, and able” to work. (Bryant Dep. at 71:8–13.) These supervisors did not return her calls. The hospital continued to operate during this time period, and there is no evidence in the record that any other PRNs had their hours similarly reduced to zero. During this time, Klinikowski approved the daily staffing schedules. On April 26, 2010, Bryant took a position at another psychiatric hospital, Skyline Madison (“Skyline”), because she “needed a job.” ( Id. at 127:5–7.)

In May 2010, Rolling Hills replaced its CEO, who conducted a review of all senior management and determined that Klinikowski “wasn't meeting his requirements ... for the CNO position.” (Docket No. 36, Attach. 7, Deposition of Rolling Hills (“Rolling Hills Dep.”), at 9:6–18.) In late June 2010, Rolling Hills offered Klinikowski the opportunity to resign voluntarily, which Klinikowski did. Reedy assumed Klinikowski's position.

At deposition, Rolling Hills offered only one explanation for not scheduling Bryant for ten weeks—namely, that Rolling Hills was in “the middle of a major transition at the hospital of the CEO and the CNO.” (Rolling Hills Dep. at 71:15–16.) It alleges that, as a result of this transition, “there was [no] availability provided ... during that transition of Tom [the outgoing CEO] leaving and Rick [the incoming CEO] coming on and Angela [Klinikowski] leaving.” (Rolling Hills Dep. at 71:23–72:2.) The hospital did continue to operate during this time frame.

In July 2011, shortly after Klinikowski resigned, Reedy called Bryant to inform her that it “was a new day” at Rolling Hills and asked Bryant to return to work. (Bryant Dep. at 139:20–140:4.) Bryant began working at Rolling Hills again in July or August 2010.

In August 2010, after returning to work, Bryant reported to Reedy that she had heard a co-worker make offensive racial comments on two occasions. Bryant reported that the co-worker had referred to her as “Buckwheat” one year earlier. Bryant alleges that she also told Reedy that the same co-worker had recently made a joke about what might happen if he met a particular African–American colleague in a dark alley, which Bryant believed was racially offensive. Reedy agreed to investigate Bryant's allegations. The record contains no information regarding whether Reedy in fact investigated Bryant's claims.

On September 13, 2010, Bryant reported to work and found that she was scheduled to work in the Geriatric Unit. The circumstances of what transpired next are highly disputed. Bryant claims that she informed her supervisor that, due to her knee injury, she could not handle working that shift in the Geriatric Unit, which she believed involved more demanding physical work than other units. Bryant contends that her house supervisor, Megan Williams, then gave her permission to clock out and leave. By contrast, Rolling Hills contends that Bryant simply stated that she would not work in the Geriatric Unit, without any reference to her knee condition. Rolling Hills alleges that Williams then asked Bryant to wait so that she could speak to her about this issue, after which Bryant left without waiting to speak with Williams. Bryant admits that she had not received any written restrictions from her physician that prohibited her from working on the Geriatric Unit at that time.

Bryant contends that she was removed from the staffing schedule following the September 13 incident. Rolling Hills disputes this contention, citing to its daily staffing schedule for the month of September, which listed Bryant for shifts on September 15, 17, 22, and 23. ( S...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Bunt v. Clarksville Montgomery Cnty. Sch. Sys.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 2 février 2021
    ...are analyzed under the same analysis as claims brought under the federal anti-discrimination statutes, Bryant v. Rolling Hills Hosp., LLC, 836 F.Supp.2d 591, 605 n.13 (M.D.Tenn. 2011), the Court's analysis of her retaliation claim under Title VII applies equally to her claim under the THRA.......
  • Jenkins v. Plumbers & Pipefitters Union Local No. 614, & CS3, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee
    • 6 septembre 2013
    ...must show that the [compared-to non-minority employees] are similarly situated in all respects.’ ” Bryant v. Rolling Hills Hosp., LLC, 836 F.Supp.2d 591, 617 (M.D.Tenn.2011) (quoting Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 583 (6th Cir.1992)). This means that the individuals with whom the p......
  • Howse v. Metro. Gov't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • 13 janvier 2021
    ...a member of a protected group and has been subjected to an adverse action. See Clayton, 281 F.3d at 611; Bryant v. Rolling Hills Hosp., LLC, 836 F.Supp.2d 591, 617 (M.D.Tenn. 2011); Johnson-Romaker v. Kroger Ltd. P'ship One, 609 F.Supp.2d 719, 730-31 (N.D.Ohio 2009). When a plaintiff is una......
  • Harris v. Maturecare of Standifer Place, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • 5 août 2015
    ...the THRA is analyzed in the same manner as Title VII claims. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a)(1); Bryant v. Rolling Hills Hosp., LLC, 836 F. Supp. 2d 591, 605 n.13 (M.D. Tenn. 2011). To establish a prima facie retaliation case, a plaintiff must prove(1) she engaged in activity protected by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT