Dickinson v. Umass Mem'l Med. Group
| Decision Date | 24 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 09-40149-FDS |
| Parties | SCOTT DICKINSON, Plaintiff, v. UMASS MEMORIAL MEDICAL GROUP, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is a workplace discrimination action involving allegations of failure to accommodate a disability and unlawful retaliation. Plaintiff Scott Dickinson, proceeding pro se, was employed as a Division Administrator at defendant UMass Memorial Medical Group. He alleges that UMass Memorial failed to reasonably accommodate his learning disabilities and retaliated against him for disclosing those disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.
Defendant has moved for summary judgment as to all claims. Plaintiff has moved to strike three exhibits submitted with defendant's summary judgment filings. For the following reasons, the motion to strike will be denied and the motion for summary judgment will be granted.
The facts are presented in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the non-moving party.
Scott Dickinson was hired by UMass Memorial Medical Center as a Division Administrator within the Department of Medicine on December 5, 2005. (Sampson Aff. ¶ 3). He was initially assigned to the gastroenterology division, which was headed by Dr. Dominic Nompleggi. (Nompleggi Aff. ¶¶ 1, 2, 4). In his capacity as a Division Administrator, Dickinson was responsible for his division's financial, operational, and general business functions. . Some of his duties included developing and executing business plans, determining financial needs and budgets, and preparing financial reports. (Nompleggi Aff. ¶ 4).1Robert Elston-Pollock, a Senior Administrator, was Dickinson's direct supervisor. (Elston-Pollock Aff. ¶¶ 1, 2).
Dickinson's record of performance during the first ten months of his employment is mixed. Between December 2005 and July 2006, Elston-Pollock sent Dickinson several e-mails of encouragement and praise. (Pl.'s Opp., Ex. B). These e-mails included language such as "this is good, " "good work, " and "Scott, this is outstanding, keep it up." (Id.). Referring to a budget that Dickinson had created, Elston-Pollock wrote, "Scott, don't get a swelled head!" after another manager wrote, in reference to the budget, (Id.).
Beginning in July of 2006, Dickinson's performance began to decline. E-mails from that period express concern over the accuracy of spreadsheets and financial documents produced byDickinson. . In August 2006, Lynda Holmes, a senior accountant with whom Dickinson worked to prepare compensation plans and budgets, voiced concern over the integrity of his work product. (Holmes Aff. ¶¶ 2, 4, 5). She notified Elston-Pollock that Dickinson's formulas were incorrect, observing that he "doesn't seem to have an understanding of even the basics." . Later, in October, she again expressed frustration to Elston-Pollock over Dickinson's misunderstanding of compensation formulas and his failure to learn or take notes when she instructed him on how to perform the calculations. (Id. ¶ 6, Ex. B).
Other e-mails from the summer of 2006 suggest that Dickinson's performance was sub-par. One e-mail instructs Dickinson, "you need to be hear [sic] at 9 sharp and leave at 5 at the earliest, " as Elston-Pollock was "getting flak" about his tardiness. . In September, Elston-Pollack wrote to Dickinson alerting him that Dr. Nompleggi was "complaining" about him. (Id.). Dickinson had on several occasions made the same mistake in classifying doctors in a budget spreadsheet, and Dr. Nompleggi had expressed frustration to Elston-Pollock over this error. (Nompleggi Aff. ¶¶ 6, 7, Ex. B).
On October 12, Elston-Pollock wrote to inform Dickinson that he would not be permitted to attend an upcoming professional conference in Las Vegas. (Id.). Because a site visit was approaching and he was "struggling with some of the financial fundamentals, " Elston-Pollack wanted him to remain behind to improve his competency. (See id.).
The following day, on October 13, Dickinson scheduled an appointment with Jeanne Sampson, a partner in the human resources department. (Sampson Aff. ¶ 5). During the meeting, he revealed that he had been diagnosed with dyslexia and attention deficit disorder in 2001. (Id.).He provided a doctor's note to verify the claim. (Id.). Dickinson explained that he had not previously disclosed these learning disabilities to his supervisors or members of the human resources team. (Sampson Aff. f 5; Elston Pollock Aff. ¶ 3). He also mentioned that he had not asked for assistance to accommodate his disability. (Sampson Aff. f 5; Elston Pollock Aff. ¶ 3).
Sampson forwarded the doctor's note to UMass Memorial's Employee Health Services Department, which recommended that Dickinson undergo an updated assessment. (Sampson Aff. ¶ 6). In the meantime, Sampson, Elston-Pollock, and Dickinson met to discuss accommodations that could begin right away. (Id. ¶ 7). All three agreed that Dickinson should attend an Excel class to bolster his understanding of the financial documents, analyses, and formulas with which he worked. (Id. ¶ 8). UMass Memorial eventually sent him to a course on the topic; Dickinson reported that it was "good" and planned to refer to the workbook it provided if he had difficulties with Excel in the future. (Id. ¶ 13).
In November 2006, UMass Memorial received an updated assessment of Dickinson from Dr. Charles Carl. . The updated assessment confirmed the 2001 diagnosis of attention deficit disorder and dyslexia. (Id.). Dr. Carl's letter suggested the following workplace accommodations for Dickinson: (1) additional training time when learning new information or tasks, (2) refresher training as needed (possibly including presentation of information through more than one medium), (3) use of a large screen display calculator, (4) access to an outline or narrative to assist in understanding formulas and calculations in complex spreadsheets, (5) reduction in excessive noise and other distractions in the work environment, and (6) "feedback/guidance on a weekly basis to help with prioritization of tasks, communication of job performance, and clarity on issues/tasks that are unclear." .
Dickinson met with Sampson, Elston-Pollock, and a member of the Employee Health Services Department on December 7 to discuss these suggested accommodations. (Id. ¶ 10). UMass Memorial agreed to implement each of the recommendations, with the exception of presentation of information through more than one medium. (Id.). Up to that point, information had been presented in verbal and written formats, and no one at the meeting could think of an alternate format that would strengthen comprehension and communication. (Id.).
As to the first accommodation, UMass maintains that Dickinson was not assigned new tasks or given new information that required additional training time after implementation of the accommodations. (Id. ¶ 11). The second and fourth accommodations were fulfilled through the Excel course that UMass provided for Dickinson. (Id. ¶ 12). The third accommodation was already implemented at the time the recommendations were made. . The provision of a semi-private office for Dickinson—he occasionally shared it with a part-time nurse—was intended to reduce noise and distraction in furtherance of the fifth accommodation. (Id. ¶ 14).
The parties dispute the extent to which Elston-Pollack provided Dickinson with guidance and feedback in compliance with the sixth accommodation. Elston-Pollock maintains that he often met with Dickinson multiple times a day to provide feedback and guidance, either in person, by telephone, or by e-mail. (Elston-Pollock Dep. at 109). At a minimum, the two always met weekly. (Elston-Pollock Dep. at 109; Sampson Aff. ¶ 15). In addition, Dickinson's office was closer to Elston-Pollock's than were the offices of most other administrators, managers, or supervisors. (Elston-Pollock Dep. at 109). Elston-Pollock asserts that because of this, he was readily available to Dickinson for further guidance. (See id.). Dickinson did not expressdissatisfaction with the amount of supervisory feedback he received from Elston-Pollack until early May 2007. (Sampson Aff. ¶ 15, Ex. B). As chief of the gastroenterology division, Dr. Nompleggi also met with him on a weekly basis to discuss ongoing tasks. (Nompleggi Aff. f 6).
Dickinson maintains that at some point, Elston-Pollock stopped conducting formal weekly meetings with him. (Pl.'s Facts at 4). The only evidence of this claim is a May 3 memorandum from Dickinson to Elston-Pollock in which Dickinson first expressed dissatisfaction with the frequency of the meetings. (Sampson Aff., Ex. B).2 Dickinson does not dispute the frequency of his meetings with Dr. Nompleggi.
Dickinson's informal performance evaluations did not improve after the accommodations were implemented. E-mails from other division members in December 2006 expressed concern over his "lack of interest [and] enthusiasm" and indicated that they were "not real comfortable" with Dickinson assuming additional responsibilities. (Elston-Pollock Aff. ¶ 7, Ex. B). Other emails expressed frustration that his work product didn't make sense. (See id.).
Memoranda and e-mails from February and March 2007 further documented inaccuracies in Dickinson's spreadsheets and analyses. (See id.). One e-mail from Elston-Pollock urged him to "be more detailed in [his] forecasts"; another told him that a compensation plan spreadsheet he...
To continue reading
Request your trial