Hajizadeh v. Vanderbilt Univ.

• Decision Date: 19 July 2012
• Docket Number: No. 3:10–cv–00817.,3:10–cv–00817.
• Citation: 879 F.Supp.2d 910
• Parties: Rana HAJIZADEH, Plaintiff, v. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY and Wonder Drake, M.D., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee

879 F.Supp.2d 910

Rana HAJIZADEH, Plaintiff,

v.VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY and Wonder Drake, M.D., Defendants.

No. 3:10–cv–00817.

United States District Court,

M.D. Tennessee,

Nashville Division.

July 19, 2012.

Heather M. Collins, Collins Law Firm, Nashville, TN, for Plaintiff.

Alonda W. McCutcheon, William N. Ozier, Robert W. Horton, Bass, Berry & Sims, Kevin R. Davis, Office of the General Counsel, Nashville, TN, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

KEVIN H. SHARP, District Judge.

This is an action for equitable relief and damages for unlawful employment practices brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”); Retaliation under the Tennessee Public Protection Act, T.C.A. § 50–1–304 (“TPPA”), the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 4–21–101 et seq. (“THRA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and Tennessee common law; the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.; and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Pending before the Court are Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry Nos. 35 and 39). Also pending is Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Defendant

Vanderbilt University

(Docket Entry No. 42). The motions have been fully briefed by the parties.

RELEVANT FACTS

Plaintiff Rana Hajizadeh (“Plaintiff”) is from Iran and worked at Vanderbilt University (“Vanderbilt”) on an H–1B visa until she received her Green Card in late June 2009.¹ Plaintiff began her employment at Vanderbilt in July 2003 as a Research Assistant II (“RA II”) in the Cancer Center working under Dr. Josiane Eid (“Eid”). In January 2005, Plaintiff interviewed with and was hired by Defendant Dr. Wonder Drake (“Drake”) (collectively with Vanderbilt, the “Defendants”), to work in Drake's lab as a Research Assistant III (“RA III”).² Drake is supervised by Dr. Richard D'Aquila (“D'Aquila”), the Director of the Infectious Disease Division. Drake's lab focuses its research primarily on exploring the etiology and pathogenesis of sarcoidosis, a disease that affects the lungs.

Initially, Plaintiff and Drake had a good working relationship, and Drake felt that Plaintiff's work performance was good. On Plaintiff's initial performance evaluation in April 2006, Drake rated Plaintiff's overall work performance 4.5 out of a possible 5.0. Drake wrote in the comments to Plaintiff's 2006 evaluation that Plaintiff's developmental goal for the upcoming year was to broaden her understanding of the sarcoidosis literature and to have more accountability for interpreting results. Over the next three years, as Drake began working more closely with Plaintiff on her research experiments, she began to notice that Plaintiff was having difficulty appraising the literature critically, determining the cause of a failed experiment, analyzing data, and working independently.

On or around August 2006, Mary Kirby (“Kirby”) and Drake were notified that the Department of Labor required Plaintiff's wage be raised consistent with a prevailing wage rate determination effective January 2007. The scores employees receive on their performance evaluations directly impact the amount of their annual raises. Drake, who paid Plaintiff's salary from one of the grants she received to conduct her sarcoidosis research, was given a choice between extending Plaintiff's H–1B visa, which meant increasing Plaintiff's pay or not extending the H–1B visa, which meant no longer employing Plaintiff. Drake reviewed her budget and decided that she could afford to extend Plaintiff's visa. Plaintiff's salary was increased by approximately $2,000.00. After Plaintiff's wage was required to be raised, Drake made constant comments to Plaintiff that she was being paid too much.

In 2007, Plaintiff requested Drake's assistance with her Green Card application. Drake agreed to write a letter on Plaintiff's behalf and to have her colleagues write letters in support of Plaintiff and the research she was doing in Drake's lab. In May 2007, Plaintiff received an overall performance evaluation score of 4.0 out of a possible 5.0 from Drake.

Plaintiff's overall evaluation score dropped to 3.8 out of a possible 5.0 in March 2008. On November 10, 2008, Plaintiff received a bonus and was thanked for being a valuable member of the team. Also, in November 2008, Plaintiff learned that there were issues concerning her Green Card and she would need to take time off from work to travel to Turkey. According to Plaintiff, when she requested to use her vacation time to travel to Turkey, Drake gave her a hard time. At the end of December, Plaintiff met with Nanette Vaughn (“Vaughn”), a manager in Vanderbilt's employee relations department, and shared her concerns that Drake may deny her request for time off to travel to Turkey for her Green Card.

After notifying Drake she needed to travel for her Green Card, in December 2008, Drake assigned Plaintiff a project investigating Toll-like receptor (“TLR”) cells in sarcoidosis pathogenesis. Plaintiff also contends that when Drake assigned the TLR project, she told Plaintiff that she did not expect Plaintiff to be able to successfully complete the project, which would then allow Drake to go to Human Resources and ask that Plaintiff's employment be terminated.

On January 20, 2009, Plaintiff sought assistance from D'Aquila regarding how to handle Drake with respect to her travel to Turkey on January 28, 2009. D'Aquila requested a meeting with Vaughn, Kirby and Drake on January 22, 2009, to discuss Plaintiff's alleged performance issues. The individuals met on February 4, 2009 and the following occurred:

Dr. Drake advised of possible options. She was told to be careful and not to do anything further until Rana has returned from Turkey regarding green card and been back several weeks. It could be construed as discrimination due to green card. Dr. Drake was told to document carefully for a while and reevaluate but be careful not to discuss with HR first. Dr. Drake was told she could not refuse to let Rana go to Turkey for green card.

(D'Aquila Dep. Ex. 3).

Additionally, Drake was advised that she could not refuse to let her go to Turkey because it would cause “serious problems.” ( Id.).

On March 13, 2009, Plaintiff received her 2009 performance evaluation, which reflected an overall score of 2.4 out of a possible 5.0. On April 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed an appeal regarding the evaluation. As part of the appeal process, Vaughn met separately with Plaintiff and Drake to discuss the scores in the evaluation. During the meeting with Vaughn, Drake reviewed and revised several of the scores on Plaintiff's performance evaluation, which resulted in an increase in Plaintiff's overall score to 2.7 out of a possible 5.0.

On June 23, 2009, Drake placed Plaintiff on a written performance improvement counseling (“WPIC”) for unproductive use of work time and continued poor work performance. On July 16, 2009, Plaintiff challenged the WPIC through Vanderbilt's dispute resolution process. Plaintiff's initial grievance contained allegations regarding discrimination and harassment by Drake. Plaintiff later withdrew this grievance and submitted a new grievance, this one without the allegations of discrimination and harassment. According to Plaintiff, she withdrew her initial grievance because she did not want the dispute resolution process delayed by an investigation by Vanderbilt's Opportunity Development Center (“ODC”). The ODC is responsible for monitoring compliance with Vanderbilt's Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Policy and investigating employees' complaints of discrimination and harassment. Plaintiff informed Vaughn that she planned to file her complaints of discrimination and harassment separately.³ On August 6, 2009, Plaintiff was placed on a final performance improvement counseling (“FPIC”) for continued work performance problems. The Plaintiff appealed her FPIC on September 6, 2009.

Plaintiff took FMLA from June 25—July 8, July 20, 22 and August 7, 2009 to address stress and anxiety that Drake was purportedly causing her. Defendants claim this was not the only source of stress and anxiety for Plaintiff. See (Docket Entry No. 68 at 11). On June 24, 2009, Plaintiff first saw her physician about the workplace stressors she was enduring. In diagnosing Plaintiff, Dr. Al–Omary (“Al–Omary”) reported the crux of the workplace stress was her supervisor screaming at her and the stress Plaintiff was experiencing at the lab.

According to Plaintiff, Drake made repeated complaints in writing about her need for FMLA, by way of example:

[7/13/09] She has two brothers and a sister who either live with or next door to her parents. There is no reason why she has to be the one to take a day off each month for their office visit. There needs to be a discussion before I approve this [FMLA approval letter]. To which Nanette Vaughn replied Mary needed to call her to discuss.

[7/29/09 in response to Plaintiff's request for FMLA due to constant stress and anxiety] Yesterday, you came in late, and left early because you said that your tooth ached. We were supposed to meet today to go over the data. Prior to this, you did have two weeks off and your doctor signed a form that you can return to work. In order for me to remain competitive with my grants, I will need you to come to work and generate data that can be used for published manuscripts.

[8/5/09] I have to say that I am amazed with all the [time] she took off going to Iran (twice) and these FMLA and sick days that she still has time left: Vandy must be generous.

[8/7/09] I told her that because she would be off for the next two weeks for FMLA that I needed her to come in today and at least go over her data with me, so that we could continue this work while she is gone. I mentioned that as soon as we finished going over the data, she was free to leave. Today, she sends me an email that she is sick due to anxiety from work and has a doctor's...