David v. Winchester Med. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 05 January 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:16-CV-00063 |
| Parties | MARY DAVID, Plaintiff, v. WINCHESTER MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 37, in which defendant Winchester Medical Center ("WMC") seeks summary judgment on Counts I and II of plaintiff Mary David's Complaint (the "Complaint" or "Compl."), ECF No. 1.1 David has also filed a Motion to Strike, ECF No. 40, which WMC opposes. For the reasons discussed below, the court will GRANT WMC's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY David's Motion to Strike.
Pursuant to Rule 56(a), the court must "grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Glynn v. EDO Corp., 710 F.3d 209, 213 (4th Cir. 2013). When making this determination, the court should consider "the pleadings, depositions, answers tointerrogatories, and admissions on file, together with . . . [any] affidavits" filed by the parties. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. Whether a fact is material depends on the relevant substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Id. (citation omitted). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If that burden has been met, the non-moving party must then come forward and establish the specific material facts in dispute to survive summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986).
In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court views the facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Glynn, 710 F.3d at 213 (citing Bonds v. Leavitt, 629 F.3d 369, 380 (4th Cir. 2011)). Indeed, "[i]t is an 'axiom that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [her] favor.'" McAirlaids, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 756 F.3d 307, 310 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal alteration omitted) (citing Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1863 (2014) (per curiam)). Moreover, "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. The non-moving party must, however, "set forth specific facts that go beyond the 'mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.'" Glynn, 710 F.3d at 213 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252). Instead, the non-moving party must show that "there is sufficient evidencefavoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party." Res. Bankshares Corp. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 407 F.3d 631, 635 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249). "In other words, to grant summary judgment the [c]ourt must determine that no reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party on the evidence before it." Moss v. Parks Corp., 985 F.2d 736, 738 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting Perini Corp. v. Perini Constr., Inc., 915 F.2d 121, 124 (4th Cir. 1990)).
David's Title VII claims arise out of events that occurred during her employment at WMC. In short, David claims that the actions of Dr. Nicolas C. Restrepo constituted sex-based discrimination, and she was terminated in retaliation for threatening to file a sexual harassment complaint against Dr. Restrepo.
David was employed at WMC as the Director of Critical Care and Nursing, Heart, and Vascular Center. Deposition of Mary E. David ("David Tr.") 27:23-30:1 & Ex. 4. David did not supervise other directors or physicians. Id. 34:6-7; 35:6-11. Critical Care is one of seven departments under the supervision of the Vice President of Nursing ("VPN") at WMC, each of which was headed by a director. Id. 32:2-34:8, 35:17-36:1 & Exs. 4, 6. During David's employment, Kathy Tagnesi originally served as VPN, and Anne Whiteside replaced Tagnesi in March 2013; David reported directly to them. Id. 33:3-11. Both Tagnesi and Whiteside, and all seven directors under the VPN's supervision, were at all relevant times female. Id. Ex. 4.
Dr. Restrepo is the Vice President of Medical Affairs at WMC. Affidavit of Nicolas C. Restrepo, MD ("Restrepo Aff.") ¶ 1. He began this position in 2011. Deposition of Nicolas C. Restrepo, M.D. ("Restrepo Tr.") 7:2-9. Both Dr. Restrepo and the VPN report directly to the President of WMC. David Tr. Ex. 6. Accordingly, "Anne Whiteside is Restrepo's peer." Mem. Opp. Def.'s Mot. Summ. J. ("Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment" or "MSJ Opp."), ECF No. 39, at 5.
Dr. Restrepo states he can come across as "brash." Restrepo Tr. 45:6-7. Whiteside stated that Dr. Restrepo's behavior was "surgeon-like" and that people found him to be "intimidating." Deposition of Winchester Medical Center By and Through Its Designated Representative Anne Whiteside ("Whiteside Tr.") 58:20-53:6. WMC has tried to improve Dr. Restrepo's communication style. Id. 55:20-56:18. While WMC claims that Dr. Restrepo's communication style has improved, Declaration of Lori Brown ¶ 5, Affidavit of Carla Dallmann ("Dallmann Aff.") ¶ 21, Declaration of Katrina Minter ¶ 5, Declaration of Desiree Brunelle ("Brunelle Decl.") ¶ 5, Dr. Restrepo still received some complaints about his communication style as late as January 2017, Restrepo Tr. Ex. 3 at 30-33. Nonetheless, in the same January 2017 review, Dr. Restrepo still received an overall rating of 3.49 for "Interpersonal savvy," and 3.93 for "Communicating effectively," both of which lie between "Effective" and "Highly Effective." Restrepo Tr. Ex. 3 at 4.
Certain policies and professionalism standards governed David's employment at WMC. David's job description, effective as of August 2008, required David "to collaboratewith nursing staff at all levels, interdisciplinary teams and executive team leaders," take "responsibility for actions of self and staff in own department," and "[d]emonstrate STARS behaviors in all interactions." Def.'s Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. ("Motion for Summary Judgment" or "MSJ Br."), ECF No. 38, Ex. 3, at 119. Further, David's position "require[d] a person with a positive attitude, who is pleasant and cooperative, displaying a professional demeanor with patients, families' physicians and fellow employees." Id.
The "STARS" behaviors, which were also called "Corporate values," required David to "treat [other employees] with courtesy and respect at all times," "anticipate and offer support, guidance and encouragement to each other," "remain open to new viewpoints, ideas, and talents," and "participate in, accept, and carry out team decisions." Id. at 120. As late as April 9, 2012, David signed that she had "read and underst[ood] the Standards of Behavior for Valley Health [i.e., STARS] and pledge[d] to comply with and practice these behaviors." Id. at 121.
At her deposition, David admitted that STARS behavior governed her employment. David Tr. 30:4. She understood that developing a trusting and respectful relationship with each other was "part of the basis" for STARS. Id. 31:5-7. She believed that "the STARS value [sic] were an integral part of creating a cohesive unit, so if people didn't respect the STARS values, it was hard to—it was hard to move people along." Id. 59:16-19.
The STARS values were transitioned "to a new values program . . . effective January 1, 2013." Mem. Supp. Mot. Strike. ("Mot. Strike"), ECF No. 41, Ex. 2; Whiteside Tr. 77:14-16. David does not dispute that a similar values system continued after STARS was phasedout. Whiteside testified that STARS was simply "the words that go along with our values, . . . the service standards." Whiteside Tr. 77:17-20.
David was also subject to WMC's Corrective Action/Work Rules-Policy and Workplace Anti-Violence Policy. Affidavit of Kathy Kagarise ("Kagarise Aff.") ¶¶ 15-16 & Ex. 14. The latter policy "prohibit[ed] verbal abuse," which was defined as "any verbal expression issued with the intent of creating fear or intimidation in another individual," and also prohibited the "creation of a hostile work environment through verbal and nonverbal behavior." Id. ¶ 16. The Corrective Action/Work Rules Policy stated that all WMC employees were at-will employees. Id. It listed as a suggested first step for disruptive, abusive, or harassing behavior "the suspension or termination of the offending employee." Id.
David's early performance reviews were, overall, very good. See MSJ Opp. 3 (). Her 2007 performance review noted that her "ability to work with a variety of people" was "Outstanding," and her ability to "build positive working relationships . . . [g]enerally exceeds standards." David Tr. Ex. 7. For her performance appraisal process in 2007-08, David was required to develop an action plan to improve employee satisfaction scores for her direct reports. Id. She also received a score of 1/5 on her 2008 performance evaluation for customer service. Id. Ex. 9.
In 2008 through 2010, David's direct reports and fellow directors made complaints about David's communication style. Id. 36:14-37:24, 38:10-40:1, 30:13-41:13, 42:1-7, 42:21-43:20, 44:15-46:14. These complaints included that David was argumentative anduncooperative, refused to attend meetings with...
To continue reading
Request your trial