Greene v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, No. 2:05-CV-00811-DCN.
| Decision Date | 29 September 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:05-CV-00811-DCN. |
| Citation | 455 F.Supp.2d 483 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Hattie Mae GREENE, Plaintiff, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant. |
A. Christopher Potts, Hitchcock and Potts, Charleston, SC, for Plaintiff.
Frank W. Gibbes, Wood W. Lay, Hunton and Williams, Charlotte, NC, for Defendant.
This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr's Report and Recommendation ("Report") that this court grant defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's Report.
Plaintiff began her employment in 1997 with defendant's predecessor, SmithKline Beecham. In 1998, she became a phlebotomist and continued in that position after defendant took over SmithKline Beecham's operations in 1999. Plaintiffs duties primarily included drawing blood from patients, completing paperwork, and computer data entry. Plaintiff worked continuously as a phlebotomist with defendant until her termination in 2004.
Defendant utilized its phlebotomists in two capacities. First, defendant contracted with doctors to place phlebotomists in the doctors' offices. The doctors were thus defendant's clients. Under this arrangement, the phlebotomists would draw patients' blood, collect the specimen, and complete the billing paperwork. Although the phlebotomists reported to the doctors' offices for work each day, they were still subject to defendant's rules and regulations. This arrangement was known as an In Office Phlebotomy (I0P) site. Second, defendant employed phlebotomists in its Patient Service Center (PSC). The PSC was a central location operated by defendant to which doctors could refer patients for blood collection and testing.
During her employment with defendant, plaintiff received three separate manuals and policies that she claims operated as contracts between her and defendant. The first document is defendant's Employee Handbook. The handbook contains a disclaimer in bold print on the first page immediately following the table of contents, which reads in pertinent part:
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
Quest Diagnostics developed this handbook to tell you about the company's current policies and procedures. It is not a legal document or a contract of employment.
Quest Diagnostics is an "at-will employer." This means either you or the company may terminate the employment relationship, at any time and for any reason, with or without cause.
(Def.Mot.Ex. 0.) The handbook sets out a standard progressive discipline policy by which employees are generally to be disciplined by increasingly harsh levels of action, ranging from verbal warnings, written warnings, and probation to eventual termination. The handbook also states, "Suspension, discharge, and other types of disciplinary action may be taken at any time in the process when appropriate un der the circumstances." (Def.Mot.Ex. P.)
The second document is defendant's Phlebotomy Performance Policy. This document provides a progressive discipline policy that is used when employees commit phlebotomy errors (e.g., mislabeling specimens). Depending on the type of error, the policy provides for a structured discipline procedure based on the number of errors, with actions ranging from verbal notices to eventual termination. (Cashwell Dep. Ex. 2-A). The policy did not state that it was the exclusive method by which an employee may be terminated.
The third and final document is defendant's Compliance Manual. The manual gives employees guidance on how to report misconduct. The manual also provides a non-retaliation policy for employees who report misconduct by other employees. The relevant portion states, "There will be no repercussions to you for having reported in good faith any suspected misconduct or non-compliance." (Def. Mot. Ex. Q.) Neither the Phlebotomy Performance Policy nor the Compliance Manual contain disclaimers.
In 2000, Kimberly Cashwell became plaintiff's immediate supervisor. Cashwell reported to Toni Seeley, the manager for defendant's operations in South Carolina who worked in the Columbia, South Carolina office. Cashwell gave defendant performance reviews in 2000, 2001, and 2002. Each of those reviews gave plaintiffs performance a rating of 3 on a scale of 5. These were regarded as good reviews, and Cashwell stated in her deposition that plaintiff was a "good phlebotomist." (Cashwell Tr. 34)
On April 1, 2003, Cashwell conducted a site visit to the Low Country IOP site where plaintiff was working. While at that office, the client reported to Cashwell that it was unhappy with plaintiff's performance. Specifically, defendant claims the client reported that plaintiff took an hour instead of the allowed thirty-minutes for lunch, she took breaks at the scheduled time regardless of her workload and refused to be flexible about when she took those breaks, she used the client's copier for personal use, and she refused to lower the volume of her cellular phone's ring. Additionally, Cashwell learned that plaintiff gave a copy of defendant's confidential break policy to the client.
Plaintiff claims that the Low Country staff asked her to do work that was not within her duties, such as pulling charts, cleaning the kitchen, and entering ICD-9 diagnosis codes. Plaintiff refused to enter the ICD-9 codes because she was not a physician, an action consistent with the Compliance Manual. (Cashwell Tr. 129) Plaintiff states that she saw other Quest phlebotomists enter ICD-9 codes while at Low Country. Plaintiff claims she reported this misconduct both Cashwell and Seeley as it occurred.
Two days after the on-site visit, Low Country told both Cashwell and Seeley that it wanted plaintiff removed from the office right away. Cashwell apparently met with plaintiff, and plaintiff at that time told Cashwell about problems she was having at Low Country and reported that other phlebotomists were entering ICD-9 codes. On April 9, 2003, Cashwell disciplined plaintiff in the form of a written notice for providing the confidential break policy to Low Country.
Sometime thereafter, defendant reassigned plaintiff to the Charleston Women's Clinic (CWC) IOP. Plaintiff claims that, while at CWC, she saw at least one Quest phlebotomist enter ICD-9 codes. Plaintiff asserts that she reported that misconduct to both Cashwell and Seeley. Plaintiff also asserts that CWC wanted her to answer phones, to use the office computers to get patient information, and to fill out requisition forms-all of which she refused to do. Plaintiff claims she reported CWC's requests to Cashwell.
On January 14, 2004, the Quest sales agent who handled the CWC account sent an e-mail to defendant's managers stating that the client was dissatisfied with plaintiff's performance. In an e-mail sent four days later, the sales agent reported that CWC complained that plaintiff was talking on her cellular phone in front of a patient, playing the radio loudly and singing in front of patients, reading personal material at times when she should have been working, and taking food from the kitchen that did not belong to her. At some point, Cashwell and Allison. Mercer, a Senior Human Resources Generalist in the Atlanta office, had a conference call with plaintiff. Plaintiff claims that she once again reported CWC's requests and that other Quest phlebotomists were entering ICD-9 codes.
In mid-January 2004, as a result of the problems at CWC, defendant assigned plaintiff to the Charleston PSC. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff claims she saw another phlebotomist enter ICD-9 codes and reported that misconduct to Cashwell. Plaintiff also telephoned Mercer and reported that phlebotomists were entering ICD-9 codes. Mercer thanked plaintiff for the call. A compliance officer then called Cashwell and advised her that plaintiff made a complaint. Over the next month, Cashwell and another employee reviewed over five-hundred forms to ensure the phlebotomists did not make any errors. Plaintiff asserts Cashwell became very unfriendly and hostile towards her after this incident.
On January 27, 2004, Cashwell gave plaintiff a written warning pertaining to the complaints made against her while at the CWC IOP. Around February 9, 2004, plaintiff used the words "Jesus Christ" in front of a patient after making an error on the computer. The next day, Cashwell and Mercer suspended plaintiff. On February 12, 2004, plaintiff's employment was terminated.
Plaintiff filed this action, stating three causes of action: (1) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, (2) wrongful discharge for breach of an employee handbook, and (3) breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act. First, she claims wrongful discharge in violation of public policy based on the theory that she was fired for internally reporting wrongdoing that violated company policies that was illegal under various state and federal laws (including prohibitions on the unauthorized practice of medicine).1 Second, she claims that she was wrongfully discharged because defendant breached the contracts created by the handbooks and policies she received during the course of her employment. Finally, she claims that defendant committed a breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act in the course of terminating her employment.2
Defendant moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The magistrate judge recommended that this court grant defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, which are discussed below.
This court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific, written objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party's failure to object is accepted as agreement with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anthony v. Atl. Grp., Inc., Civil Action Nos. 8:09–cv–02383–JMC, 8:09–cv–02942–JMC.
...handbook which set forth a four step disciplinary procedure). See also Greene v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 455 F.Supp.2d 483, 491 (D.S.C.2006). Employee handbooks and other distributed policy documents do not automatically alter the at-will status of the employee. Pursu......
-
Eady v. Veolia Transp. Services, Inc.
...of a clear mandate of public policy, a cause of action in tort for wrongful discharge arises." Greene v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 455 F.Supp.2d 483, 489 (D.S.C.2006) (citing Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., 287 S.C. 219, 224-25, 337 S.E.2d 213, 216 (1985)). Th......
-
Pastene v. Long Cove Club of HHI
...2015) ("We exercise restraint when undertaking the amorphous inquiry of what constitutes public policy."). Green v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Labs., 455 F.Supp.2d 483 (D.S.C. 2006), is instructive. In Green, this court dismissed a wrongful termination suit based in part on the plaintiff's ......
-
Anthony v. Atl. Grp., Inc.
...violation of an employee handbook which set forth a four step disciplinary procedure). See also Greene v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., 455 F. Supp. 2d 483, 491 (D.S.C. 2006). Employee handbooks and other distributed policy documents do not automatically alter the at-will s......