Crane v. Gore Design Completion, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 24 March 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil No. 5:12–CV–925–OLG. |
| Citation | 21 F.Supp.3d 769 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
| Parties | Stacy CRANE, Plaintiff v. GORE DESIGN COMPLETION, LTD. and Melissa Trevino, Defendants. |
Michael V. Galo, Jr., Galo Law Firm, P.C., San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff.
Cora C. McGowan, Donna K. McElroy, Cox Smith Matthews Incorporated, San Antonio, TX, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Stacy Crane sued her former employer, Defendant Gore Design Completion, Ltd., and her former supervisor, Defendant Melissa Trevino, for demoting and then firing her in alleged violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. Defendants have moved for summary judgment (docket no. 21). After careful consideration, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendants' motion.
Defendant Gore Design Completion, Ltd. (“Gore”) designs, manufactures, installs, and maintains aircraft interiors. In October 2010, Plaintiff Stacy Crane began working with Gore as a contract employee. In December 2010, Plaintiff was hired as a full-time regular employee and assigned the position of office manager. In this position, Plaintiff oversaw two receptionists, arranged travel for all program managers and other employees, helped with special events, arranged customer travel, completed expense reports, and performed a variety of other tasks. In the spring of 2011, Defendant Melissa Trevino became Plaintiff's supervisor.
In early July 2012, Plaintiff became very ill. On Thursday, July 5, 2012, she missed work with a sore throat. On July 6, Plaintiff was again absent. On Monday, July 9, Plaintiff came to work but left because she was again feeling ill. Thereafter, Plaintiff remained out of work until July 27, 2012, when she returned to work. Ultimately, Plaintiff was diagnosed with fibromyalgia
. During the course of her illness Plaintiff suffered debilitating fatigue, pain, and dizziness. These symptoms made her unable to perform daily living activities, including caring for her children and driving.2
During the course of Plaintiff's absence, she visited various medical providers. On July 11, Plaintiff was unable to visit with her primary care physician, Dr. Marcia Hugen, and instead visited with another doctor at the Texas Med Clinic.3 By July 15, Plaintiff was still feeling ill and went to the Christus Santa Rosa Emergency Room, where she was attended by an emergency room physician.4 Plaintiff was treated for hypothyroidism
and discharged. On July 17, Plaintiff was able to visit with her primary care physician, Dr. Hugen, at her office. On July 19, Plaintiff returned to the emergency room and was treated by an unknown physician.5 She was diagnosed with acute pharyngitis
, prescribed medication, and discharged. A note on the medical records indicates that Dr. Hugen was consulted and that she would follow up with Plaintiff at her office. On July 21, Plaintiff again returned to the emergency room, where she remained until the morning of July 24. During this stay, Plaintiff was attended by an emergency room physician.6 The physician diagnosed Plaintiff with acute pharyngitis, a gastric ulcer, dehydration, nausea, and vomiting. Plaintiff was prescribed medication, and upon discharge, she was instructed to follow up with her primary care physician in a week. The doctor also instructed Plaintiff to take two or three days off from work to rest. After two days, Plaintiff returned to work on July 27.
During the course of Plaintiff's illness and time away from work, she continually updated Defendants on her condition and possible return. This included almost daily contact with Ms. Trevino, Plaintiff's supervisor.7
On July 15, 2012, Plaintiff and Ms. Trevino conversed by text message. (Docket No. 24, Ex. 9.) Plaintiff informed Ms. Trevino that she was still feeling ill and was going to the emergency room. Ms. Trevino responded that she hoped Plaintiff would feel better. Later that day, Ms. Trevino forwarded the text message correspondence to Gerry Sheridan, Gore's director of finance at the time.8 Ms. Trevino informed Mr. Sheridan that Plaintiff was set to miss her ninth day of work. Ms. Trevino concluded, “I think we need to terminate.” (Id. ) Mr. Sheridan responded, (Id. )
The next day, July 16, 2012, Ms. Trevino sent Plaintiff a text message stating that she needed a doctor's excuse for time off.9 Ms. Trevino also states that she would send Plaintiff an FMLA certification, which would have to be filled out by her doctor and returned. On July 17, 2012, Gore employee Jose Rosales faxed an FMLA certification form to Plaintiff. Attached to the form was a notice of FMLA eligibility criteria and employee rights and responsibilities. The attached notice states that Plaintiff must return the certification form by July 31, 2012. Next to this date on the notice is the following statement: “If a certification is requested, employers must allow at least 15 calendar days from receipt of this notice; additional time may be required in some circumstances.” The next sentence on the notice states, “[i]f sufficient information is not provided in a timely manner, your leave may be denied.”
On July 17, 2012, Plaintiff provided the FMLA certification form to her primary care physician, Dr. Hugen, when she visited Dr. Hugen at her office. The next day, Plaintiff called Dr. Hugen's office and again requested that the doctor fill out the form. On July 20 and 26, Plaintiff requested, yet again by telephone, that Dr. Hugen fill out the certification. In making these requests, Plaintiff spoke to Dr. Hugen; Dr. Hugen's nurse practitioner, Jennifer Lefner; and Dr. Hugen's office manager. Additionally, Plaintiff's husband requested that Dr. Hugen fill out both his and Plaintiff's FMLA forms.10 Mr. Crane's requests to Dr. Hugen and her office staff included a phone call on July 22 and a phone call about a week later. Each time, Plaintiff and her husband were told that they would have to wait. Dr. Hugen would only complete the certification after Plaintiff visited with a specialist and Dr. Hugen received the specialist's diagnosis.
Plaintiff returned to work on July 27, 2012. Her certification was not completed by that time. Plaintiff had not been able to visit with a specialist.11 Upon her return, Plaintiff asserts that she was ostracized by management and co-workers. Plaintiff was also removed from her previous position as office manager and assigned to the position of administrative assistant. In this role, Plaintiff no longer supervised the receptionists and only arranged travel for program managers and assisted customers on site or incoming.
By July 30, 2012, Dr. Hugen still had not completed the FMLA certification form. The July 31 deadline Gore imposed for the return of the form was approaching. Plaintiff emailed Ms. Trevino stating that she was waiting on her doctor to complete the certification and that she would follow up with her doctor when she visited on August 2.
On August 2, 2012, Plaintiff visited Dr. Hugen; however, Dr. Hugen still would not complete the FMLA certification because Plaintiff had not yet visited a specialist. Dr. Hugen referred Plaintiff to another specialist, a rheumatologist, and promised to write a letter to Gore explaining the delay.
That evening, Gore's director of finance, Gary Sheridan, emailed the company's president, Kathy Gore, recommending that Plaintiff be terminated due to her prolonged absence and failure to return her FMLA certification. In his email, Mr. Sheridan states that he spoke with Ms. Trevino earlier in the day. He also comments that, (Docket No. 21, Ex. L.) Ms. Gore responded curtly, “[o]k just make sure [Plaintiff's new manager] knows what's going on.” (Id. )
On August 3, 2012, Plaintiff reported for work. She spoke with Josie Rosales, who Gore had appointed as Plaintiff's contact person for FMLA questions. (See Notice, Docket 21, Ex. G; see also Trevino Dep., Docket No. 24, Ex. 10, at 33:24–34:5, 40:5–8.) Plaintiff informed Ms. Rosales, that Dr. Hugen had not completed the certification because she was waiting on the specialist's diagnosis. Ms. Rosales nodded her head in response. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff met with Ms. Trevino. Ms. Trevino told Plaintiff that her employment was being terminated for unexcused absences. Plaintiff was then escorted from the premises by a security officer.
At some point after Plaintiff's termination, she visited the rheumatologist Dr. Hugen had referred her to on the first available appointment date. Afterwards, on September 12, 2012, Plaintiff met with Dr. Hugen and her nurse practitioner, Ms. Lefner. That day, Ms. Lefner filled out an FMLA certification form for Plaintiff's husband, who was then able to return the form to his employer. Mr. Crane's employer had requested certification regarding Plaintiff's illness since Mr. Crane had taken time off to care for his wife. Plaintiff asserts that she did not request or receive a completed certification form for herself since, by that time, her employment with Gore had been terminated.
On October 1, 2012, Plaintiff filed her lawsuit against Gore and Ms. Trevino. She asserts that Ms. Trevino was Plaintiff's supervisor and made the decision to demote and then discharge her. Plaintiff asserts that both Gore and Ms. Trevino are liable for violating the substantive protections of the FMLA. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants violated the anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation provisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Table of cases
...2003, no pet.), §29:4 Cram v. Lamson & Sessions Co ., 49 F.3d 466 (8th Cir. 1995), §20:4.B.2 Crane v. Gore Design Completion, Ltd., 21 F.Supp.3d 769 (W.D.Tex. 2014), §25:6.C.1 Crawford v. Formosa Plastics Corp ., 234 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2000), §23:3.A.2 Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville ......