Graham v. Univ. Radiology Grp.
| Decision Date | 22 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:18-cv-8616-BRM-DEA |
| Parties | MARLON GRAHAM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY RADIOLOGY GROUP, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Before the Court is Defendants University Radiology Group ("URG"), Alberto Goldszal ("Goldszal"), Judith Gronlund-Jacob ("Jacob"), Lauree Labaska, ("Labaska") and Deborah Mannings-Lynch ("Lynch")1 (together, "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiffs Marlon Graham ("Graham"), Betty Perry ("Perry"), Daphne Jean-Baptiste ("Jean-Baptiste"),2 and Anthony Eldridge ("Eldridge") (together, "Plaintiffs") oppose the Motion. (ECF No. 45.) Also before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed the same day. (ECF No. 33.) This Motion also is opposed. (ECF No. 40.) Having reviewed the submissions filed in connection with the Motions and having declined to hold oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), for the reasons set forth below and for good cause appearing, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, while Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
Plaintiffs claim they were wrongfully discriminated and/or retaliated against by their employer because of their race in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, as amended, N.J. Stat Ann. § 10:5-1 et seq. ("NJLAD") and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Additionally, Graham, individually, claims wrongful discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 34:19-1, et seq. ("CEPA") (Compl. (ECF No. 1) at ¶ 1.)
Plaintiffs all worked for URG, a Delaware Corporation with a principle place of business in East Brunswick, New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 12.) URG provides radiology and other medical-imaging services, and runs, manages, or provides staff for eight regional hospitals and its own twenty-one (21) medical-imaging centers. (Defs.' Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 32-2) ¶ 2.) URG operates a call center (the "PACS Department") that liaises between its medical-imaging centers and affiliated hospitals. (Id. ¶ 3.) The PACS Department operates 24 hours a day through three shifts: shift one from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., shift two from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m., and shift three from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. (Id. ¶ 4.) Each shift has its own managers and supervisors. (Id.)
URG has an Employee Handbook laying out the company's pertinent policies and complaint procedures. (Id. ¶ 5.) Each employee receives a copy of the Handbook and signs a receipt acknowledging receipt of the Handbook when they begin working for the company. (Id.)
Goldszal is Chief Operating Officer of URG. (Id. ¶ 6.) Labaska is Director of Human Resources. (Id. ¶ 7.) Jacob manages the PACS Department. (Id. ¶ 8.) Lynch is Supervisor of the PACS Department's second shift. (Id. ¶ 9.)
Graham was a PACS Analyst from October 20, 2011, until the termination of his employment on August 4, 2017. (Id. ¶ 10.) Eldridge has been a PACS Analyst since April 4, 2014. (Id. ¶ 12.) Perry has worked for URG since August 2, 2002, and now is assistant supervisor for the third shift at the PACS Department. (Id. ¶ 13.) All Plaintiffs are African-American, as is Defendant Lynch. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 14.) The Court describes the nature of each Plaintiff's allegations, and the facts relevant to those allegations, in turn.
Graham alleges intentional discrimination via URG's failure to promote him and underpaying him, failing to provide necessary training, retaliation for protesting discrimination, and creating an oppressive, hostile, intimidating and abusive work environment.
Graham worked on the third shift. (Id. ¶ 15.) Regarding URG's alleged failure to provide training, Graham once was Supervisor of that shift, though he does not remember the specific dates (Id. ¶ 16 (citing Graham Dep., Defs.' Ex. B (ECF No. 32-5) at 51:7-20).) Graham did not receive FUJI training.3 (Id. ¶ 18 (citing ECF No. 32-5 at 78:21-81:22).) Graham says FUJI was a function of the duties of PACS Analysts. (Pls.' Statement of Disputed Material Facts (ECF No. 45-3) ¶ 17.) URG says FUJI training was not required to fill a PACS Analyst position. (Id. ¶ 17.) Graham says two employees, Dave Mallon and Steve Higgins, received FUJI training. (See ECF No. 33-8 ¶ 81; see also ECF-5 at 78:21-81:22.) URG says both have been PACS Administrators. (ECF No. 32-2 ¶ 20 (citing ECF-5 at 78:21-81:22).) Graham says Lynch, who is not a PACS Administrator, has received FUJI training. (ECF No. 45-3 ¶ 20.) URG says FUJI Training is not required for an Administrator position. (ECF No. 32-9.) Graham was never a PACS Administrator. (ECF No. 32-2 ¶ 19 (citing ECF No. 32-5 at 55:17-61:10).) He never applied for a PACS Administrator position. (Id.)
In May 2015, URG approved the payment of a so-called shift differential for workers such as Graham. (ECF No. 32-2 ¶ 40 (citing Defs.' Ex. M (ECF No. 32-16)).)
Graham alleges URG discriminates by failing to promote African-American workers. A white employee was promoted to Junior PACS Administrator. (ECF No. 33-8 ¶ 81.) A Junior PACS Administrator position was not internally posted. (ECF No. 32-2 ¶ 22 (citing ECF No. 32-5 at 81:15-86:6).) Plaintiffs say this does not mean no one at URG was able to apply for that position. (ECF No. 45-3 ¶ 22.)
In 2015, Graham applied to be a Project Manager; he was not offered the position. (Id. ¶ 23 (citing ECF No. 32-5 at 83:6-94.8).) Graham says his application was never considered and so he could not be offered the position. (ECF No. 45-3 ¶ 23.)
In 2016, Graham was alerted by email that a Project Manager position was open. (Id. ¶ 24 (citing ECF No. 32-5 at 83:6-94:8).) He was offered the position, with an annual salary of $80,000.00, but he did not accept the offer. (Id. ¶ 25 (citing ECF No. 32-5 83:6-94:8).) Graham says the position went instead to a less-qualified woman of Asian heritage for an annual salary of $120,000. (ECF No. 45-3 ¶ 25.)
Regarding Graham's allegation that URG discriminated by creating an abusive work environment, in August 2016, Graham made a mistake, calling the wrong radiologist at the wrong hospital; a patient died. (Id. ¶¶ 26, 27 (citing ECF No. 32-5 at 98:25-102:4, 176:8-15).) Graham disagrees that calling the wrong radiologist and the patient's death were causally related. (ECF No. 45-3 ¶ 27.) On September 12, 2016, Graham met with Jacob and Michael Daley ("Daley"), Graham's supervisor, about this incident. (ECF No. 32-2 ¶ 28.) In the meeting, Graham received a written warning, which he refused to sign; his pay was not withheld. (Id. (citing ECF No. 32-5 at 100:17-102:4, 174:22-178:4).)
On September 20, 2016, Graham sent an eight-page memo to Labaska in response to having received a written warning regarding the incident. (Id. ¶ 29 ).) The Memo was titled, "Objection to Papering my Employee File." (Id.) Graham was not punished, nor was his pay affected, for sending this memo. (Id.) Graham testified at deposition he complained to human resources at other times, but did not recall details. (Id. ¶ 34 (citing Defs.' Ex. G (ECF No. 32-10) at 40:16-41:10).)
Graham alleges URG discriminated against African-Americans by selectively enforcing the policy that workers needed to be on time for beginning their shifts. In July 2017, Graham sent an email to Daley in response to an email a day earlier from Jacob to Daley about staff attendance. (Id. ¶ 30.) In the email, Graham at one point stated, (Id. ).) URG terminated Graham's employment on August 4, 2017. (Id. ¶ 31 (citing ECF No. 32-5 at 153:14-157:24, 159:8-23).)
URG points out that in his deposition, Graham testified no one at URG ever used the "N-word" to his face, which is, "for me where the line would have been" regarding hostile, discriminatory, demeaning or derogatory words. (Id. ¶ 35 (citing ECF No. 32-5 at 137:7-140:5).) Graham testified three times that people made comments directly to him about his race. (Id.) The first person to do so was Deborah, while explaining to him "what she needs to do to survive as a black employee" and thus "what I may need to do as a black employee." (Id. (citing ECF No. 32-5 at 137:7-140:5).) The second person was Jacob, who stated upon learning Graham was pursuing a Project Manager role, stated, "It would be good to see people like you in positions like that." (Id. (citing ECF No. 32-5 at 137:7-140:5).) The last was a secretary in the office of a prior CEO, who also stated, while trying to set up an interview for Graham in regards to the project manager role, "It would be good to see faces like yours around here." (Id. (citing ECF No. 32-5 at 137:7-140:5).) Graham did not report or complain to Human Resources about these events. (Id. (citing ECF No. 32-5 at 137:7-140:5).)
Graham filed a Complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). (Id. ¶ 32.) That Complaint was administratively dismissed. (Id.) The EEOC issued Graham a Notice of Right to Sue on February 2, 2018. (Id.)
In May 2018, Graham filed this action. (Id. ¶ 33.)
Eldridge alleges he was denied training, night differential pay and job opportunities, and suffered workplace harassment.
Eldridge was hired by URG in 2014 and became a full-time worker in 2016. (Id. ¶ 60 (citing Defs.' Ex. D (ECF No. 32-7) at 47:2-8).) He now is a PACS Analyst. (Id. ¶ 61 (citing ECF No. 32-7 at 35:8-37:17, 93:13-95.3).) Eldridge has never applied...
To continue reading
Request your trial