D'Ambrosio v. Cresthaven Nursing & Rehab. Ctr.

• Decision Date: 21 September 2016
• Docket Number: Civil No. 14-06541 (JBS/KMW)
• Parties: NICOLE D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff, v. CRESTHAVEN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

NICOLE D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff, v. CRESTHAVEN NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER, Defendant.

Civil No. 14-06541 (JBS/KMW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

September 21, 2016

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE

OPINION

APPEARANCES:

W. Charles Sipio

KOLMAN ELY PC

414 Hulmeville Avenue

Penndel, PA 19047

Attorney for the Plaintiff

Stephanie E. Farrell

COOPER LEVENSON, P.A.

1125 Atlantic Avenue

3^rd Floor

Atlantic City, NJ 08401

Attorney for Defendant

SIMANDLE, Chief Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Nicole D'Ambrosio ("Plaintiff") filed this lawsuit against her employer Crest Haven Nursing & Rehabilitation Center ("Defendant"). Plaintiff has brought suit alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et. seq. ("Title VII"), as well as under 42 U.S.C § 1981, § 1983, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("NJLAD"). Plaintiff has also alleged interference and retaliation claims under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and the New Jersey Family Leave Act ("NJFLA"). She alleges that her supervisors at Crest Haven discriminated against her and interfered with her FMLA rights because she is African American and retaliated against her for filing an initial complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and for taking medical leave.

Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 [Docket Item No. 31], arguing that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for each of its employment decisions. Plaintiff opposes the motion [Docket Item No. 34], to which Defendant has submitted a reply. [Docket Item No. 37.] The motion is decided without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court, will grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims.

II. BACKGROUND

This Court begins with an examination of the factual record in this action, beginning with Defendant's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute ("SMF").

Plaintiff was hired by Cape May County as an Institutional Attendant for Crest Haven Nursing and Rehabilitation Center ("CHNRC") on June 29, 1993. (SMF ¶ 1.) CHNRC is an entity of the County of Cape May, New Jersey and is a 180 person long-term care facility, employing approximately 200 full-time employees. (SMF ¶ 2.) Throughout the time of Plaintiff's employment, including through the present, Defendant has had in place official workplace policies prohibiting discrimination and retaliation as well as reporting procedures for employees who believed they were being subjected to discrimination or who witnessed it. (SMF ¶ 109; Def. Ex. T, County Anti-discrimination and Anti-retaliation policies.) At all points during her employment and continuing in the present, Plaintiff has held the Civil Service Title of Senior Clerk Typist. (SMF ¶ 3.) Plaintiff is still currently employed with CHRNC as Scheduling Coordinator, a position she has held since April 2014. (SMF ¶ 5-6.) Despite maintaining the same Civil Service title, pay and benefits, Plaintiff's job responsibilities within CHNRC have shifted over the years. (SMF ¶ 7-10; 22; 24; 28.) In connection with Plaintiff's instant claims, the Court will examine Plaintiff's (1) transition from Admissions Director to Admissions Clerk; (2) reassignment from Admissions Clerk to Ward Clerk; and (3) denial from Scheduling Coordinator and Financial Director positions.

1. Admissions Director to Admissions Clerk - May 2012.

In May 2012, Plaintiff was removed from her supervisory role as Admissions Director and placed in the role of Admissions clerk. (D'Ambrosio Dep. 83:1-4.) On or around April 27, 2012, a heated telephone conversation between Plaintiff and Lisa McNulla, CHNRC Assistant Administrator and one of Plaintiff's supervisors, led to the subsequent removal of Plaintiff's supervisory duties. (Def. Ex. E, Statement of Lisa McNulla.) In that conversation, which was witnessed by Administrator and other supervisor Linda Thornton who was in the car with McNulla, Plaintiff expressed frustration with her work in the Admissions Department and informed Ms. McNulla that she would be requesting a "stress leave" from the Union. (SMF ¶ 18; Def. Ex. D, Linda Thornton's Summary of Meeting Notes dated 5/2/2012.) Ms. McNulla perceived that Plaintiff "was very short and extremely upset" and had been insubordinate for hanging up on her before the end of the call. (See Def. Ex. E, Statement of Lisa McNulla dated 4/27/12; Def. Ex. D.) As a result of the foregoing incident, a meeting was held on May 2, 2012, between Plaintiff, Ms. McNulla, Ms. Thornton, and Union Vice President Woody Lewis, where Plaintiff and her supervisors discussed their respective concerns with Plaintiff's performance as Admissions Director. (Def. Ex. D, Linda Thornton's Summary of Meeting Notes dated 5/2/2012.) Ms. Thornton noted that she and Ms. McNulla felt that in regards to the April 27 phone call, Plaintiff "fell apart" and they had concerns about Plaintiff expressing to them that she felt her supervisory role was "overwhelming" since "Lisa [McNulla] has trained and guided her for over 5 years." (Id.) On May 7, 2012 Ms. Thornton sent a memo to Plaintiff informing her that as of May 9, 2012 Plaintiff's "job duties in Admissions will no longer include supervising the Admissions Staff." (Def. Ex. C; SMF 18-19.) Plaintiff was instructed that she would continue to perform the required clerical duties for the Admissions Department. (SMF ¶ 20.) Plaintiff retained her Civil Service Title of Senior Clerk Typist, and there was no change in her compensation or benefits. (SMF ¶ 22; D'Ambrosio Dep. 88:7-22; 115:12-23; 181:1-22; 187:24-188:22.) Plaintiff asked the union to pursue a grievance regarding Plaintiff's perceived "demotion," but the Union did not pursue the matter, informing her that the change in her job responsibilities without loss in pay was not considered a demotion. (SMF ¶ 19; D'Ambrosio Dep. 48:6-15; 138:8-22; 51:4-8.)

2. External Case Manager to Ward Clerk - December 2012

Plaintiff claims while she was working as Admissions Clerk she performed a dual role and also acted as an External Case Manager ("ECM"). (SMF ¶ 9, 24.) The role of the ECM at the time Plaintiff held the position was mainly off-site marketing to local physicians and hospitals in order to increase the number of patients at CHNRC. (D'Ambrosio Dep. 84:16-85:23.) On or around September 19, 2012, Plaintiff was informed by Ms. Thornton and Ms. McNulla that they were posting the ECM position because they wanted a person with more clinical experience to resume the job duties of ECM. (SMF ¶ 26; D'Ambrosio Dep. 148:3-25.) Ms. Thornton and Iris Drackett, the Director of Nurses at that time, made the decision to modify the job qualifications to require a Licensed Practical Nurse ("LPN") to fill the position because they felt the person admitting residents to a nursing home, who often had to deal with medical questions and medication issues, should have medical knowledge and training. (SMF ¶ 25; Drackett Dep. 31:4-32:10. See also Def. Ex. H, Linda Thornton email dated 11/27/13; Def. Ex. I, Revised Job Description for ECM position.) On or about September 26, 2012, Plaintiff was approved to go out on medical leave for three months. (D'Ambrosio Dep. 149:4-7.)

According to Plaintiff, on December 18, 2012, right before she returned from medical leave, Plaintiff filled out an initial intake questionnaire with the EEOC alleging race discrimination. (D'Ambrosio Dep. 132-135, at Ex. CMC-3.) Two days later, Plaintiff returned to CHRNC from medical leave. (Id. at Ex. P-7.) At this time, Ms. McNulla and Ms. Thornton informed Plaintiff she was being assigned as Ward Clerk because there was a vacancy in that position due to another employee, Janella Gutner, going out on medical leave. (SMF ¶ 29; D'Ambrosio Dep. 117.) During this time, CHNRC was experiencing a hiring freeze as a result of County budgeting mandates, so CHNRC had to make do with only the employees they had. (SMF ¶ 4; D'Ambrosio Dep. 165:3-14.) As a result there were a number of staff changes and employees were often reassigned or asked to fill multiple roles. (SMF ¶ 21; Drackett Dep. 24: 13-20.) CHNRC was further subjected to Department of Health requirements concerning staffing at nursing home facilities and was therefore required to have a certain number of employees in certain positions. (SMF ¶ 38.) The Ward Clerk position was one of these mandatory staffing positions and needed to be filled. (SMF ¶ 39; D'Ambrosio Dep. 128:3-11.) Nicole Hebron had replaced Plaintiff in the Admissions Department during Plaintiff's medical leave, and because she was kept in that position upon Plaintiff's return, there were no vacant positions in the Admissions Department.

When informed that she was being assigned to Ward Clerk, Plaintiff never voiced any objection to her supervisors, and her salary, benefits, and Civil Service Title as "Senior Clerk Typist" remained the same. (SMF ¶ 32-34; D'Ambrosio Dep. 88:2-9, 14-21; 91:16-22; 115:8-11.) As Ward Clerk, she also had the same shifts and days off and worked in the same building as she did while working in Admissions. (SMF ¶ 35-36; D'Ambrosio Dep. 91:23-92:3; 92:22-93:11; 115:12-116:2.) Around this same time, Plaintiff filed a grievance with the CHNRC union. (D'Ambrosio Dep. 42:18-43:23.) The union did not pursue the grievance in which Plaintiff alleged she had been demoted, because the union representatives told her that the changes in her duties from Admissions Clerk to Ward Clerk did not constitute a demotion since she did not lose any salary or benefits. (D'Ambrosio Dep. 138:8-22.) The union did not investigate her grievance or pursue a demand for arbitration on her behalf. (SMF ¶ 121; D'Ambrosio Dep. 48:16-19; 51:4-8.)

3. Denial of Scheduling and Finance Positions - January 2013

During the months Plaintiff was out on medical leave, ...