Garlitz v. Alpena Reg'l Med. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 02 December 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 10–13874–BC. |
| Citation | 834 F.Supp.2d 668,113 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1670,44 NDLR P 95,25 A.D. Cases 1110 |
| Parties | Shelly GARLITZ, Plaintiff, v. ALPENA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Kathy Himes, and Diane Shields, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Julie A. Gafkay, Gafkay & Gardner, PLC, Frankenmuth, MI, for Plaintiff.
Craig H. Lubben, Miller, Johnson, Kalamazoo, MI, Rebecca L. Strauss, Kalamazoo, MI, for Defendants.
This employment dispute arises out of a medical examination administered to Plaintiff Shelly Garlitz as a condition of her accepting employment with Defendant Alpena Regional Medical Center. It is undisputed that the examination did not go well; the dispute centers on why Defendant then rescinded its offer of employment to Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that it was rescinded because she refused to answer questions posed in the exam about pregnancy, abortion, sexual activity, birth control, and similar subjects—all of which were posed only to female applicants—and because she complained of these questions to Defendants. Defendants contend that the offer was revoked because of Plaintiff's “attitude”—they thought her “rude.”
Alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII (), the Elliot–Larsen Civil Rights Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff brings suit in this Court against Alpena; its vice president of human resources, Defendant Diane Shields; and its recruiter, Defendant Kathy Himes. Defendants now move for summary judgment. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
Alpena is an acute-care medical facility employing more than nine hundred people. Plaintiff worked for Alpena as a medical technologist from 1995 to 2007. During this twelve year period, she generally received positive reviews. Defendants' emphasize, however, that “[h]er 2003 evaluation noted that she had ‘interpersonal difficulties' with co-workers.” Defs.’ Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 2, ECF No. 22 ( ). In pertinent part, the 2003 evaluation provides: Defs.' Mot. Ex. 2.
In May 2007, Plaintiff left Alpena to complete school and to work as a travelling medical technologist. Her “termination of employment evaluation” rated her quality of work, industry, and initiative as “excellent” (the highest of four possible ratings), her character and attitude as “good” (the second highest possible rating), and recommended her for rehire. Pl.'s Opp'n Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 1, ECF No. 24–2.
About a year later, Plaintiff decided to reapply to Alpena. On July 18, 2008, she completed an employment application for a “per diem” job. The following week, Defendant Himes, Alpena's recruiter, called Plaintiff and arranged a meeting. On July 23, the two ladies met. Himes described Plaintiff's behavior as “slightly condescending, very bold, very matter of fact, just rude.” Himes Dep. 74:3–5, June 8, 2011, attached as Defs.' Mot. Ex. 4. That day, Himes “offered [Plaintiff] the per diem job to commence on July 30 subject to completion of a drug test and a medical examination.” Defs.' Br. 2.
Prior to the medical examination, Alpena provided Plaintiff with a medical history form (Alpena form). See Defs.' Mot. Ex 6. The Alpena form, which asks general questions about an applicant's medical history, instructs: Id.
Alpena also scheduled Plaintiff's medical examination at HealthWise Medical Clinic, an independently owned clinic. Inquiring into the relationship between Alpena and HealthWise, Plaintiff's counsel asked in Himes's deposition:
Himes Dep. 19:15–20:1. Elsewhere in her deposition, Himes was asked:
Himes Dep. 12:19–13:3, attached as Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. 10, ECF No. 25–11. Kassandra Lechel, one of the two owners of HealthWise, clarifies that HealthWise and Alpena have an oral contract to supply preemployment medical examinations to Alpena.
When Plaintiff arrived for her appointment at HealthWise on July 29, she was presented with a second medical history form (HealthWise form). See Defs.' Mot. Ex. 7, ECF No. 22–8. The HealthWise form also asks a series of general questionsabout an applicant's medical history. It goes on, however, in a separate section titled “Females— Please Complete,” to ask:
– Pregnant?
– Planning Pregnancy[?]
– Menstrual Flow[?]
– Date 1st Day of Last Period[?]
– Pain/Bleeding During or After Sex[?]
– Number of: Pregnancies ___ Abortions ___ Miscarriages ___ Live Births ___
– Birth Control Method[?]
– B.C. Pill (Name) [?]
– Date of Last PAP Test[?]
– Date of Last Mammogram[?]
Id. (emphasis in original). Plaintiff initially refused to answer these questions, informing the receptionist: “I didn't feel those were relevant to a preemployment physical.” Pl.'s Dep. 52: 17–18, Mar. 22, 2011, attached as Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. 424–5. Plaintiff was then escorted back to an examination room.
A short time later, Lechel entered. A nurse practitioner, Lechel worked at Alpena from about 1995 to 2005 and co-founded HealthWise in 2006. Lechel notified Plaintiff that she would not pass her medical examination unless she completed all the questions on the HealthWise form. See Pl.'s Dep. 53:1–5. Lechel explained in her deposition that Lechel Dep. 61:22–24, June 7, 2011, attached as Pl.'s Opp'n Ex 10, ECF No. 25–11. Plaintiff recounts what happened next:
[S]he said she's not passing me unless I fill it out. At that time I just said, “Fine, you know, if that is the case.” ... At which point I started to fill out some of the papers. Again, I got to the point where the issues about whether I plan on having children, birth control, and all those questions, I didn't feel that was relevant, I did not fill all those out.
Pl.'s Dep. 54:23–55:8. Lechel then conducted a medical examination of Plaintiff; it lasted about five minutes. In her deposition, Lechel discussed her impression of Plaintiff, recalling that “she was very paranoid and very guarded, somewhat questionably delusional.” Lechel Dep. 57:16–17. At the conclusion of the examination, Lechel approved Plaintiff for work.
After Plaintiff left HealthWise, Lechel called Alpena and spoke with Himes: “I said I would like to be able to pass this person but she withheld information, and I was concerned that she was withholding information about her health and that we had requested information about her history.” Lechel Dep. 61:18–22.
Himes called Plaintiff and told Plaintiff not to come in the following day, July 30, 2008. Notwithstanding this instruction, Plaintiff came into Himes's office. Plaintiff asserts that after she arrived: “I explained that Casey Lechel and I—that I felt there was a ‘power play,’ were my words, I believe, saying—because I didn't want to answer the questions about, you know, again, female genecological [sic] issues.” Pl.'s Dep. 69:12–16. That same day, Himes sent Plaintiff a letter revoking the offer of employment. The letter provided:
Dear Shelly,
This letter is to serve as official notification to you as it relates to your offer of employment as a Medical Technologist with Alpena Regional Medical Center.
Based on preemployment guidelines and your denial [sic] to complete the requirements, Alpena has opted to withdrawal [sic] our offer of employment.
Thank you for your interest in returning to Alpena Regional Medical Center. We wish you well in all your endeavors.
Sincerely,
Kathy Himes
Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. 12, ECF No. 25–13. Defendants caution in their brief, however, “that the letter was not an accurate reflection of why [they] decided to withdraw the offer.” Defs.' Br. at 7. Rather, Defendants explain: “The decision was solely because of the attitude that [Plaintiff] demonstrated in her interaction with Alpena staff and HealthWise.” Id. 6. Plaintiff disagrees, believing her offer was rescinded, at least in part, for the reasons referenced in the letter—her refusal to answer questions on the HealthWise form. In Plaintiff's deposition, for example, Defendants' counsel inquired:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deeds v. City of Marion
...a mandatory health screening on behalf of an employer, the doctor may be an agent of the employer. See Garlitz v. Alpena Reg’l Med. Ctr. , 834 F.Supp.2d 668, 680–81 (E.D. Mich. 2011) ; Jimenez v. Dyncorp Int’l, LLC , 635 F.Supp.2d 592, 602–04 (W.D. Tex. 2009) ; cf. Tex. Emp’rs’ Ins. Ass’n v......
-
Latowski v. Northwoods Nursing Ctr.
...Sex discrimination also includes pregnancy discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) and under ELCRA. Garlitz v. Alpena Regional Med. Cntr., 834 F. Supp. 2d 668, 678 (E.D. Mich. 2011). The salient issue in any Title VII claim of discrimination is whether the plaintiff was singled out becaus......
-
White v. A.J.M. Packaging Corp.
... ... law.” Durante v. Fairlane Town Ctr., 201 ... Fed.Appx. 338, 344 (6th Cir. 2006) ... Garlitz v. Alpena Reg'l Med. Ctr. , 834 F.Supp.2d ... 668, ... ...
-
McBratnie v. Mcdonough
...undergo a ‘preemployment' medical examination, unless it is focused on ‘the ability of the applicant to perform job-related functions.' ” Id. at 675 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § However, if certain conditions are met, an employer can require an applicant to undergo “a medical examination after an o......