Gonzalez v. City of Glendale
| Decision Date | 03 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-17-04593-PHX-SMB,CV-17-04593-PHX-SMB |
| Parties | Maria Orozco Gonzalez, Plaintiff, v. City of Glendale, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Pending before the Court is Defendants Carl Westbrooks' and the City of Glendale's (hereinafter "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgement and Memorandum of Points and Authorities. (Doc. 76, "Mot.") Plaintiff Maria Orozco Gonzalez responded, (Doc. 85, "Resp."), and Defendants replied. (Doc. 86, "Rep.") Both parties filed separate statements of fact with multiple attached exhibits. (Doc. 77, "SOF"; Doc. 84 at 1-16 "CSOF"; id. at 17-22, "ASOF".) After considering the motions, the Court enters the following Order:
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff worked as a Personal Computer "PC" Operator for the Utilities Department of the City of Glendale (hereinafter "the City") from 2000 to 2015, entering work orders into a software program the City calls "Hansen."" (SOF ¶¶ 1, 18; Doc. 84-1 at 3.) Defendant Carl Westbrooks supervised Plaintiff from 2011 until her resignation in 2015. (SOF ¶¶ 18, 58.) While supervising Plaintiff, Westbrooks conducted annual performance reviews, regularly consulted with Plaintiff regarding her job performance, and once, formally counseled Plaintiff's alleged failure to follow the City's Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") guidelines, a counseling that resulted in a Memo of Expectations ("MOE"). (See Doc. 84-1 at 77, 127-64, 182, 257-60, 269.) Plaintiff contends that through these supervisory practices and other conduct, Westbrooks and the City violated her rights under the FLMA, Title VII, and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). (Doc. 55 at 6-9.)
Plaintiff suffers from "digestive problems, and urinary tract infections, as well as severe allergies and asthma." (Doc. 84-1 at 3.) To treat her conditions, Plaintiff began requesting leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), (Doc. 77-2 at 56), formally seeking approval for FMLA leave on six occasions from 2013-2015—three times for personal medical conditions and three to support her spouse. (Doc. 77-2 at 54-81 and 100-102.) The City approved each request. (Doc. 77-2 at 3-5.) Of note, the City approved Plaintiff's FMLA requests for intermittent leave of one hour per week for allergy injections in October 2014, (Doc. 77-2 at 56), two to three weeks of leave for carpal tunnel surgery in February 2015, (id. at 102), and intermittent leave with up to five flare-ups a year for chronic headaches, rhinitis, sinusitis, and asthma in November 2015, (id. at 59). And although the City does have a Disability Accommodation policy, Plaintiff did not apply. (Id. at 2.)
Plaintiff argues Westbrooks engaged in discriminatory and retaliatory conduct because of her health conditions, use of FMLA, and her sex. (Doc. 55 at 6-9.)
On the morning of January 5, 2015, Plaintiff asked Westbrooks for permission to go home because she did not feel well. (Doc. 84-1 at 80; Doc. 77-1 at 73.)1 Wanting advice from City's Human Resources department (HR) before allowing Plaintiff to leave work,Westbrooks asked Plaintiff to remain in the office pending further guidance. At this point, according to Plaintiff, Westbrooks himself left the office with no further communication. (Doc. 84-1 at 4). With Westbrooks allegedly gone, Plaintiff sought guidance from HR employee Craig Sullivan, inquiring over email whether her supervisor can deny her request to go home if she doesn't feel well, has a doctor's note, and has FMLA. (Doc. 77-1 at 73.) Sullivan forwarded Plaintiff's message to another HR employee, Kerry Sheward, and asked her to contact Plaintiff directly. (Id.) Sheward promptly e-mailed Plaintiff to clarify her reasons for leaving. (Doc. 77-1 at 76.) In her response to Sheward, Plaintiff failed entirely to explain what prompted FLMA leave request that morning and instead discussed an absence the previous Friday related to a recent surgery. (Id.)
The next day, January 6, 2015, Plaintiff spoke with three City employees—former supervisor Mark Fortkamp and two HR employees—about the previous day's events. First, Plaintiff explained to yet another HR employee, La Trisse Kuzinski, that she requested leave the day pervious because she was "wheezing and needed to take a breathing treatment." (Doc. 84-1 at 4.) Plaintiff again alleged that when Westbrooks returned to work on January 5, he told Plaintiff that "FMLA doesn't protect your job like you think it does" and that Plaintiff should "train [the temporary employee] up to par . . . so [she will] get to know my job because we never know what may happen[.]"2 (Id.) Next, Plaintiff followed up with Sheward. (Id. at 84.)3 But, in Sheward's account of that conversation, Plaintiff admitted that she did not tell Westbrooks that her request to leave work was connected to her FMLA-covered condition and further admitted to improperly designating unrelated absences as FMLA-approved. (Id.) Sheward memorialized that conversation in an e-mail which also provided Plaintiff information to assist future FLMA leave requests and cautioned against violating FMLA procedures. (Id.) Lastly, Plaintiff met with her former supervisor, Mark Fortkamp, in person to discuss her issues with Westbrooks and the previous day's drama. (Id. at 89.)
Another disputed incident kicked off at 10:45 a.m. on August 10, 2015 when Plaintiff requested FMLA leave from Westbrooks by leaving a time slip and sending a calendar invite in a brief email that said simply: "I need to take a FMLA day today; I tried to stay as long as I could to get things done." (Doc. 77-1 at 100.) Responding to this unspecific request, Westbrooks asked Plaintiff to wait and speak with HR before departing. (SOF ¶ 35.) Plaintiff maintains HR approved her departure. Acting on that alleged approval, Plaintiff departed work and sought treatment for a "sudden respiratory attack" at a local Urgent Care facility. (Doc. 84-1 at 5-6.) An email from City HR representative Vicki Moss memorializing that conversation seems to undermine Plaintiff's statement that she received approval: (Doc. 77-2 at 90.) The City had previously approved Plaintiff's FMLA leave for specific purposes—hour-long, weekly allergy injections, (SOF ¶ 28), post-operative recovery for carpal tunnel surgery, (SOF ¶ 30), and three of her husband's medical conditions, (SOF ¶¶ 27, 29, 31)—but never for a personal respiratory condition. Over the next several days, HR repeatedly contacted Plaintiff for the medical verification required to approve her August 10 FMLA leave request. (SOF ¶ 37.) On November 15,2015, having received the requested documentation, the City approved Plaintiff's leave request, (SOF ¶¶ 37-38; ASOF ¶¶ 37-38), marking the first and only approval for intermittent leave related to Plaintiff's respiratory conditions. (See Doc. 77-2 at 97-98.)
The incident on August 10 prompted Westbrooks, with the assistance of HR, to issue a Memo of Expectations (MOE) to Plaintiff. (Id. at 257.) Issued on September 14, 2015, the MOE outlined the proper notification procedures for use of FMLA leave and covered absences.4 (Doc. 84-1 at 257-60.) Among other things, it specified that FMLA leave required a City employee provide their Supervisor as much notice as possible priorto taking the leave, report the status of their condition and intent to return to work, and provide HR with a work release from their health care provider. (Id. at 258.) To Plaintiff, the MOE represents one of many incidents of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.
Plaintiff's growing complaints of mistreatment first emerge in her communications with Fortkamp and HR. (See Doc. 84-1 at 95-103.) Three incidents stand out: a January 26 meeting with Fortkamp, wherein Plaintiff requested transfer from the Wastewater Division, complaining that she was intimidated by Westbrooks, who treated her unfairly and often raised his voice; (id. at 95); a March 3 interaction where Plaintiff complained to Sheward that Westbrooks had learned of her report to HR and issued a warning to not "make this personal" and allegedly refused to approve her FMLA leave (id.); and an April 29 communication to Sheward reporting that Westbrooks complaints over the manner and frequency of Plaintiff's breaks from work (id. at 100) caused Plaintiff stress and (possibly) ongoing stomach aches and a urinary tract infection. (Id.) The reports were not completely one-sided. Plaintiff also reported that Westbrooks had admittedly "gotten better," stopped yelling, and Plaintiff was, as a result, less intimidated than in the past. (Id.) But still, Plaintiff saw discrimination: "[H]e doesn't treat the men in this manner, never in my history have I seen him do it them." (Id.) On each occasion Plaintiff raised complaints, the responding City employee documented and reported them. (See id. at 98, 100.) And often, noting the seriousness of her accusations and emphasizing that discrimination would not be tolerated, they encouraged Plaintiff to file a formal complaint with HR. (Id. at 98.)
Second, Plaintiff claims that Westbrooks reduced her lunch break to thirty minutes while allowing the men in her division up to an hour and a half. (Doc. 55 at 4; ASOF ¶ 85.) In an e-mail to Sheward on June 1, 2015, Plaintiff said that after initially giving all his employees an hour for lunch Westbrooks gradually reduced her break to forty-five minutes and then thirty minutes. (Id. at 169.) While Westbrooks admits that longer lunches may have occurred when he joined his employees, (id. at 19), both Fortkamp and Westbrooks separately insist that a standard thirty-minute lunch is City policy. (Doc. 77-1 at 7, 11.)
Third, Plaintiff cites the removal of the "update," "del...
To continue reading
Request your trial