Harley v. The Health Center of Coconut Creek, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 04 61309 CIV.,04 61309 CIV. |
| Citation | 487 F.Supp.2d 1344 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
| Parties | Wilma HARLEY, Plaintiff, v. THE HEALTH CENTER OF COCONUT CREEK, INC., a Florida corporation, and Thomas and Thorngren, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, Defendants. |
Chris Kleppin, Glasser, Boreth, Ceasar & Kleppin, Plantation, FL, for plaintiff.
Daniel H. Kunkel, Jennifer Fowler-Hermes, Kunkel, Miller & Hament, P.A., Sarasota, FL, for defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART/DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT THE HEALTH CENTER OF COCONUT CREEK, INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant The Health Center of Coconut Creek, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law [DE 29, filed January 16, 2006].1 The day it moved for summary judgment, Defendant also filed a Statement of Facts in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 30]. On February 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 44]2 Plaintiff also filed a Response to Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts [DE 45], and a Statement of Disputed Material Facts in Support of her Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 52], on February 2, 2006. On February 13, 2006, Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE 53] and Responses to Plaintiffs Statement of Undisputed [sic] Material Facts [DE 54].3
In July, 2000, Wilma Harley ("Plaintiff') began working as a Certified Nursing Assistant ("CNA") at a long-term health care center (the "Facility") run by an entity known as National Healthcare Corporation. (DSF at ¶¶ 1-2; PSF at ¶¶ 1-2). The Health Center of Coconut Creek, Inc. ("Defendant") took over operations at the Facility on October 1, 2000. (PSF at ¶ 1).
In connection with her hire, Plaintiff received a form entitled "Job Description — Nursing Assistant." (Depo. of Wilma Harley, 121:12-122:16). According to that form, a CNA is expected to provide "direct and indirect patient care activities under the direction of a Registered Nurse or Licensed Practical Nurse." (Depo. of Wilma Harley, Ex. 7). She must also assist "patients with activities of daily living," and care for, comfort, and assist in the "maintenance of a safe and clean environment for an assigned group of residents." (Id.). A CNA is expected to: (1) be sensitive to patients' physical and psychosocial needs; (2) have a pleasant and cheerful personality; and (3) be tactful and have a courteous approach with patients and visitors. (Id.). Additionally, a CNA must be able to stand on her feet for 7-8 hours per day, and be able to lift 60-70 pounds "on a frequent basis." (Id.).
Also in connection with her employment, Plaintiff received a copy of Defendant's Employee Handbook. (DSF at ¶ 4). Plaintiff signed an Employee Acknowledgment Form indicating that she received a copy of the Employee Handbook, and understood that she was bound by its contents. (Depo. of Wilma Harley, Ex. 5). Among the items contained in the Employee Handbook is Defendant's policy on the Federal Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") leave. (DSF at ¶ 4). Defendant grants leave in accordance with the FMLA for, among other reasons, the birth of a child. (Depo. of Wilma Harley, Ex. 6). With respect to notice of FMLA leave, the policy provides that, (Id.).4
On March 31, 2003, Caridad Hernandez ("C. Hernandez") became Defendant's Facility Administrator. (DSF at ¶ 6). In May, 2003, Iona Sue Broughton ("Broughton") became Defendant's Director of Nursing, and reported to C. Hernandez. (Id.); (Depo. of Iona Sue Broughton, 11:4-11:7; Depo. of Wilma Harley, 29: 10-29: 12). Broughton changed certain policies at the Facility. (Depo. of Wilma Harley, 68:5-68:7). For example, Broughton denied Plaintiff her customary overtime work. (Depo. of Wilma Harley, 68:5-68:15). At all material times, Plaintiff worked a shift beginning at 3:00 p.m. and ending at 11:00 p.m. (DSF at ¶ 6). Plaintiff's direct supervisor was Vinette G. Thomas ("Thomas"). (PSF at ¶ 3). When Broughton became the Director of Nursing, Plaintiff served as team leader for the CNAs on her shift. (Depo. of Wilma Harley, 21:4-22:2). The position did not elevate Plaintiff above the other CNAs, although Plaintiff was expected to ensure that operations on her floor went smoothly. (Depo. of Wilma Harley, 22:3-22:7).
In April or May, 2003, Plaintiff learned she was pregnant. (DSF at ¶ 7). At some point, Broughton learned of Plaintiff's pregnancy.5 (Depo. of Iona Sue Broughton 67:12-67:15). Plaintiff requested a few days off from work in late June 2003 so that she could close on the purchase of a new home. (DSF at ¶ 9). Broughton denied the request. (Id.). Plaintiff then re iterated her request for time off with C. Hernandez, who is Broughton's supervisor. (Id.). C. Hernandez granted Plaintiff's request for leave. (Id.). In Plaintiffs mind, Broughton treated her unfairly from then on because she resented that Plaintiff spoke with her supervisor regarding a request for time off that she had denied. (Depo. of Wilma Harley, 65:19-67:10).
In early October, 2003, Plaintiff claims that she went to Broughton's office to inquire about maternity leave. (DSF at ¶ 11).6 Although her baby was not due for several months, Plaintiff inquired about maternity leave early because Broughton had denied her earlier request for time off for the closing on her new home. (Id.). Plaintiff claims that Broughton told her to come back with her request for maternity leave in December. (Id.).
In mid-October, 2003, C. Hernandez and Maureen Minkin ("Minkin"), Defendant's Social Services Director, learned during their rounds about an incident involving a CNA and a resident. (Depo. of Maureen Minkin 50:25-51:19). On October 15, 2003, Minkin spoke with a resident named Stewart Harap ("Harap"). (DSF at ¶ 14). Harap complained that one of the CNAs intimidated him, but that he was reluctant to file a complaint because he feared retaliation. (DSF at ¶ 14). When Wilma Harley entered the room, Harap identified her to Minkin as the CNA who intimidated him. (Id.). Harap told Minkin that he did not want to formally report the incident until after Plaintiff had been discharged from the Facility. (Depo. of Maureen Minkin, 86:25-87:2).
After talking with Harap, Minkin drafted a grievance form. (DSF at ¶ 14). She also spoke with Harap's roommate concerning Harap's grievance. (Id.).
Sometime that week, while making rounds at the facility, C. Hernandez also learned from Harap that he had a problem with a CNA. (Depo. of Caridad Hernandez, 36:4-36:24; 242:2-242:21). The complaint was about "[the CNA's] attitude and what had been going on in the past." (Depo. of Caridad Hernandez, 36:4-36:6). Harap told C. Hernandez that he had complained about Plaintiff once before, and in response, Plaintiff visited his room and told him not to complain anymore. (Depo. of Caridad Hernandez, 36:25-36:7). Harap did not specifically tell C. Hernandez to keep their communications confidential: (Depo. of Caridad Hernandez, 164:21-165:1).
It was not until October 16, 2003, that C. Hernandez identified Plaintiff as the CNA causing problems for Harap. (Depo. of Caridad Hernandez, 243:7-243:17). That morning, at a meeting of department heads and unit managers, C. Hernandez mentioned that she had concerns involving a situation between a resident and a CNA. (DSF at ¶ 16). Also present at the meeting were Broughton and Minkin. (Depo. of Iona Sue Broughton, 60:16-60:24). Minkin indicated that she was aware of the situation. (DSF at ¶ 16). C. Hernandez asked Minkin to speak with her privately about the situation following the meeting. (Id.). The two spoke about Harap's complaints concerning Plaintiffs treatment of him. (DSF at ¶ 17).
Following the meeting, Minkin called an abuse hotline to report Harap's complaint. (DSF at ¶ 18). However, Minkin did not provide Harap's name because Harap requested that the communications be kept confidential. (DSF at ¶ 18). She also talked with Harap's roommate and his roommate's wife regarding Harap's complaint. (Id. at ¶ 19). Also at the meeting was Carol Rosenbaum, Director of Dietary. (Id.). Harap joined the conversation already underway, and made the following accusations against Plaintiff: (1) she threw a snack at him and told him not bother her for the rest of the evening; (2) she left his roommate in the bathroom, and told him that she could not help him because she had a bad back; and (3) she was uncaring, rude and mean. (Id.). (DSF at ¶ 19).
Broughton and C. Hernandez met to discuss what to do about the situation. (Depo. of Caridad Hernandez, 14:20-14:24; 20:2-20:14). They both agreed that the accusations against Plaintiff constituted a violation of Defendant's policies and procedures and required termination. (Id.). Broughton clarified, however, that she based her own decision on information obtained from others, including C. Hernandez and Minkin. (DRF at ¶¶ 24 and 25). Minkin assisted Broughton and C. Hernandez in deciding whether Plaintiffs actions violated the patient's rights, but she did not participate in the decision to terminate Plaintiff. (Depo. of Caridad Hernandez, 21:25-22:7).
Broughton testified at one point that she supported Plaintiff's termination because Harap "felt intimidated, he was fearful, and it was an unsafe environment." (Depo. of Iona Sue Broughton, 144:2-144:5). C. Hernandez confirmed that Harap's fear that Plaintiff would retaliate against him based on an experience involving a prior complaint contributed to her ultimate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mileski v. Gulf Health Hosps., Inc.
...that she was denied a benefit to which she was entitled[,]'" Pereda, supra, 666 F.3d at 1274, quoting Harley v. Health Ctr. of Coconut Creek, 487 F.Supp.2d 1344, 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2006); however, "[t]he employee does not have to prove 'that [her] employer intended to deny the benefit, because......
-
De La Cruz v. Children's Trust of Miami–Dade Cnty.
...evidence that [he] was denied a benefit to which [he] was entitled.” Pereda, 666 F.3d at 1274 (citing Harley v. Health Ctr. of Coconut Creek, 487 F.Supp.2d 1344, 1357 (S.D.Fla.2006)). Here, Plaintiff was entitled to take leave when medically necessary, and it is uncontested that Defendant g......
-
Gonzalez v. PNC Bank, N.A.
...she was entitled," Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Comms., 666 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Harley v. Health Ctr., 487 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2006)), and that she "has been prejudiced by the violation in some way." Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 8......
-
Benson v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...the FMLA. Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Cmtys., Inc., 666 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Harley v. Health Ctr. of Coconut Creek, 487 F.Supp.2d 1344, 1357 (S.D. Fla. 2006)) (emphasis added). Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate she was denied a benefit to which she believes she......