Gauthier v. Sunhealth Specialty Services, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | Civ.A. No. 05-40119-FDS. |
| Citation | 555 F.Supp.2d 227 |
| Parties | Wendy GAUTHIER, Plaintiff, v. SUNHEALTH SPECIALTY SERVICES, INC., and Sunbridge Healthcare Corporation, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Michael O. Shea, Law Office of Michael O. Shea, Wilbraham, MA, for Plaintiff.
Kent S. Griggs, Michael Williams, James M. Henry, Lawson & Weitzen, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This is an action alleging unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of gender and handicap, arising out of an employee's pregnancy and related complications. Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. Plaintiff Wendy Gauthier is a former employee of defendants Sunhealth Specialty Services, Inc., and Sunbridge Healthcare Corporation, which operate a nursing home and rehabilitation facility in Oxford, Massachusetts, called Sandalwood. Gauthier alleges that defendants discharged her from employment in violation of (1) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4 (gender discrimination); (2) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(16) (handicap discrimination); (3) Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4(4) (retaliation); and (4) Mass. Gen. Laws. ch. 152, § 75B (workers' compensation retaliation). No federal claims are raised.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all counts. For the following reasons, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part as to the claims of handicap discrimination; granted as to the claim for workers' compensation retaliation; and denied as to the claims of gender discrimination and retaliation.
The facts are stated in the light most favorable to the plaintiff unless otherwise noted.
Plaintiff Wendy Gauthier is a 34-year-old woman residing in Millbury, Massachusetts. Defendants Sunhealth and Sunbridge own and operate a nursing care and rehabilitation facility known as Sandalwood in Oxford, Massachusetts.1
Gauthier was employed by Sandalwood from December 22, 2003, through May 25, 2004, as a Certified Nursing Assistant ("CNA"). She was hired to work on the night shift, from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
During her interview for the position, Gauthier told Ann Kendall (her eventual supervisor and the director of nursing at Sandalwood) that she was twelve weeks pregnant.2 Gauthier also told Kendall that she intended to take unpaid maternity leave after the birth of her child.
It is undisputed that lifting and supporting the weight of facility residents is an essential job function of a CNA. According to Gauthier, at the time her employment began, on December 22, she was able to perform all essential job functions of a CNA, including heavy lifting. At some point soon thereafter, however, her ability to lift became restricted.
On December 31, nine days after she began work, she was seen by Dr. Lester Mietkiewicz for a medical examination. Dr. Mietkiewicz's records indicate that Gauthier "was 12 wks pregnant and no heavy lifting is suggested." (Pl.Ex.7).
On January 12, 2004, Gauthier was examined by her obstetrician, Dr. John Farricy. Dr. Farricy gave her a note that stated in relevant part: "I am recommending that [Gauthier] be able to work and lift with the assistance of another co-worker." Her supervisor, Ann Kendall, requested the note to be sure that Gauthier was capable of doing her job.
According to Gauthier, she was injured on the job on January 24, 2004, when she was kicked in the abdomen by a Sandalwood patient. She drove herself to a hospital emergency room for treatment. She contends that she obtained a note from the hospital stating that she was not to engage in any lifting or bending. She gave this note to Kendall and requested "light duty." Gauthier was told by Kendall that "there is no light duty" and was not given any less strenuous work. According to Gauthier, Kendall also stated that she could not accept the note because it was not from Gauthier's obstetrician. The note is not in the record.3
Gauthier visited her obstetrician on January 26, who gave her a note to relay to Kendall. This note stated: "It is my recommendation that [Gauthier] be able to continue working and lifting with caution."
Defendants filed a workers' compensation claim on behalf of Gauthier for the abdominal injury; the record does not reveal when it was filed. According to Gauthier, she did not request that the company file the claim. She further contends that no one at Sandalwood asked her about workers' compensation, nor did she speak to anyone about the subject. Gauthier nonetheless asserts that she was "aware" a claim had been filed on her behalf.
Gauthier requested light duty another four or five times between January and May 2004. Each time, Kendall denied her request. The administrator of Sandalwood, Stephen Copper, testified that there was light duty available on the day shift for CNAs, and that it was Sandalwood policy to put CNAs on light duty on the day shift "if there was a position available." This light duty consisted of various tasks such as filing, general office work, answering phones, and patient escorts. Because of more limited staffing, light duty was not available on the night shift. Gauthier contends that she was never offered a move to the day shift, but also concedes that she never requested one.
Beginning in about January 2004, Gauthier began to suffer from morning sickness. She vomited every day approximately twenty times a day. She was not given any medication or treatment for nausea, and was not given any restrictions as to her activities by her physician.
She testified as follows as to her request for accommodation for morning sickness:
At some point, Gauthier also began suffering from swollen feet. She testified as follows:
There was numerous times I was at work, I needed my feet to be up because they were swollen so bad and I feel that I performed my job to my best abilities and I—I went above and beyond the call of duty at work.
(Id. at 11:54). The only evidence in the record that Gauthier may have communicated to her supervisors that she had swollen feet, or that she asked for an accommodation, was the following exchange at her deposition:
Beginning in January 2004, Gauthier periodically asked for time off because she wanted to sleep between the end of her shift and her doctor's appointments, which were in the morning. She wished to use this extra time to sleep "because it was too hard for me to stay up all night and stay up all day to go to ... doctor's appointments." (Gauthier Dep. at 38).5 Those requests were repeatedly denied.6
Gauthier's employment was terminated on May 25, 2004. It is undisputed that the official explanation for Gauthier's discharge was that she had committed two "no call/no shows." A "no call/no show" occurs when a Sandalwood employee does not show up for an assigned shift and does not notify anyone at the facility. It is also undisputed that understafflng jeopardizes the health and safety of the residents of a skilled nursing facility.
The second no call/no show purportedly occurred on some unspecified date in May 2004. It was this incident that caused Sandalwood to terminate Gauthier's employment. Neither Kendall nor any other Sandalwood employee recalls specifically who made the decision to end Gauthier's employment.
Gauthier disputes that she ever committed even one "no call/no show." She contends that on every occasion that she was absent, she arranged for another CNA to switch shifts with her in advance. In particular, she contends that on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Furtado v. Standard Parking Corp.
...provide a reasonable accommodation in the form of reassignment to a new or different position. Gauthier v. Sunhealth Specialty Servs., Inc., 555 F.Supp.2d 227, 240 (D.Mass.2008) (Saylor, J.). Instead, Massachusetts General Laws chapter 151B requires only that the employer provide reasonable......
-
Packard v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Exec. Office of Pub. Safety
...of Selectmen of Hingham, 419 Mass. 535, 544 n.5, 646 N.E.2d 131, 138 n.5 (1995), and case cited; Gauthier v. Sunhealth Specialty Servs., Inc., 555 F. Supp. 2d 227, 237 n.7 (D. Mass. 2008). Under both state and federal law, it is unlawful for an employer "to fail orrefuse to hire or to disch......
-
Packard v. Commonwealth of Mass. Executive Office of Pub. Safety
...of Selectmen of Hingham, 419 Mass. 535, 544 n.5, 646 N.E.2d 131, 138 n.5 (1995), and case cited; Gauthier v. Sunhealth Specialty Servs., Inc., 555 F. Supp. 2d 227, 237 n.7 (D. Mass. 2008). Under both state and federal law, it is unlawful for an employer "to fail orrefuse to hire or to disch......
-
Annobil v. Worcester Skilled Care Ctr., Inc.
..."The relevant issue is the nature of the purported disability, 'regardless of its origin.' " See Gauthier v. Sunhealth SpecialtyServs., Inc., 555 F. Supp.2d 227, 239 (D.Mass. 2008) and cases cited therein. In her oppositions to the motions, Annobil talks about Defendants' failure to accommo......