Hill v. Walker

Citation918 F.Supp.2d 819
Decision Date18 January 2013
Docket NumberNo. 5:12CV00016 JLH.,5:12CV00016 JLH.
PartiesYulanda HILL, Plaintiff, v. Carolyn WALKER, individually and in her official capacity as an employee of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

918 F.Supp.2d 819

Yulanda HILL, Plaintiff,
v.
Carolyn WALKER, individually and in her official capacity as an employee of the Arkansas Department of Human Services, Defendants.

No. 5:12CV00016 JLH.

United States District Court,
E.D. Arkansas,
Pine Bluff Division.

Jan. 18, 2013.


[918 F.Supp.2d 823]


Luther Oneal Sutter, Sutter & Gillham, PLLC, Benton, AR, for Plaintiff.

Lori Freno–Engman, Arkansas Attorney General's Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant.


OPINION AND ORDER

J. LEON HOLMES, District Judge.

Yulanda Hill brings this action against the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) and Carolyn Walker, Hill's former supervisor with DHS. Hill alleges numerous claims surrounding her termination by DHS and Walker. Previously, the Court dismissed all of Hill's claims except for her sex discrimination claim and her claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The defendants have now moved for summary judgment on these remaining claims, while Hill has filed a motion to either strike certain testimony relied upon by the defendants or stay the proceedings in anticipation of further discovery. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion for summary judgment and denies the motion to strike or stay.

I.

On June 28, 2010, Hill was hired by DHS as a Family Service Worker for the Jefferson County, Arkansas, area. A Family Service Worker, according to the “Functional Job Description,” is “responsible for providing protective, foster care, and supportive services for abused or neglected children” and must maintain regular contact with such children and their families. Document # 26–1, at 37. The functional job description lists, among other things, the following as duties and responsibilities of a Family Service Worker:

Investigates suspected child abuse and neglect complaints by making on-site visits ... and interviewing parties involved.... [Intervenes] in crisis situations, removes the child from the home if the situation is life threatening, and arranges for temporary placement in foster homes, group homes, or treatment facilities.... Provides counseling and guidance to clients in defining their

[918 F.Supp.2d 824]

needs, interests, and courses of action and refers clients to other professionals, agencies, services, or community resources appropriate to clients' problems. Recruits and trains families, conducts home studies and family assessments to determine appropriate child placements, and visits clients ... on a regular basis to monitor progress toward case objectives.

Id. The functional job description also lists these “Special Requirement [s]” for the position:


Frequent twenty-four hour on call duty for response to [emergency] life and death situations and frequent exposure to physical and verbal abuse is required.

Federally mandated service deadlines coupled with heavy case loads and the life and death nature of the work creates a stressful environment.

Id. at 38. In deposition, Hill testified that her job, in practice, was very stressful and involved a heavy caseload. Similarly, Cecile Blucker, a DHS Deputy Director, stated in a declaration that a Family Service Worker must be able to work long hours and handle difficult cases in a stressful environment with frequent exposure to physical and verbal abuse. See Document # 26–3, at 1–2.


Hill's immediate supervisor for her job was Christine Thomas and her County Supervisor was Walker. On May 24, 2011, Hill sent an e-mail to various DHS personnel, including Thomas and Walker, stating that she was removing herself from a specific child maltreatment case due to extreme difficulties she was having with the child's mother. In the e-mail, Hill wrote that the mother had used racial slurs and other obscenities against Hill and her coworkers, had called the Governor's office to complain about Hill, and had alleged, through her attorney, that there was a recording of Hill cursing at her.

The day after Hill sent the e-mail, she met with Thomas, Walker, and DHS Area Director Larry Lewis to discuss the situation. At the meeting,1 Hill gave more details about her altercations with the mother in question and reiterated that she desired to be removed from the case. Walker and Lewis, however, told Hill that she could not unilaterally remove herself from a case. Regarding Hill's specific case difficulties, Walker stated that:

The nature of this business is that we deal with hostile clients all the time. We have clients who are mad because we have taken their children for whatever reason, they don't want us in their lives.... [Our clients] curse folks out, they call us names. This is some of the things that we have to deal with on a daily basis almost, so removing yourself is not the answer.... Especially if [the clients] are on drugs, that's going to cause them to act in a way that's unprofessional[.]
Document # 26–1, at 43, 45.
Lewis echoed these sentiments, explaining that parents whose children have been taken away “are going to get rude with you and say some horrible things to you ... but we can't always pull you off the case.” Id. at 49.

During the meeting, Walker and Lewis brought up several possible solutions to Hill's quagmire that would not involve her removal from the case. First, they suggested additional training concerning difficult clients. Second, they noted that Hill had not requested a “special staffing,” which is a meeting between a caseworker, her supervisor, the client, and all attorneys involved, during which it is decided whether problems can be resolved or whether a

[918 F.Supp.2d 825]

court referral is necessary. Third, they proposed that Hill take a supervisor or security person with her during visits to the mother's home. Fourth, they offered to have security present whenever the mother was in the DHS office building. Hill eventually agreed that she would thereafter request a special staffing, although she denied needing additional training and continued to resist the idea of her involvement in any future visits for that specific case. In response, Walker stated, “We've given you options to try to make this work and then we need to at least try it.” Id. at 51.

Over halfway through the meeting, in the middle of discussions about the aforementioned solutions, Hill stated that she was on medication for stress and that she had been experiencing anxiety attacks—all related to “this job,” and more specifically, the mother. Hill indicated that because of this stress she was going to leave work that day to consult a counselor regarding medication. Walker responded that DHS did not have anything in writing related to Hill's medication or medical leave requests. After the meeting, Hill left work. In deposition, she testified that the meeting itself caused her to have an anxiety attack. The next day, on May 26, 2011, Hill returned to work and gave Thomas a doctor's note stating that Hill was under her physician's care as of May 25 and that she would be released to work on June 20. The only information provided about Hill's actual condition was a checkmark next to the printed word “illness.” See id. at 57. Hill had few sick leave days remaining at that time, so she asked to use FMLA or accrued compensatory time to cover her being gone until June 20. While she was not deemed eligible for FMLA, Hill was approved to use her earned compensatory time from May 25 until June 20.

The decision to grant Hill compensatory leave for nearly a month was subsequently reversed, however. In a May 31 letter to Hill, Walker wrote that she had “reviewed [Hill's] approved compensatory time leave request” and determined that her “continued leave through June 17th would impose an unreasonable burden on the agency and cannot be granted.” Id. at 61. 2 In the letter, Walker explained that Hill's absence “would disrupt the agency's ability to provide adequate case work services to clients” and “pose an undue hardship on the agency” for a number of reasons. Id. Walker instructed Hill to report back to work on the morning of June 6, 2011. This meant that Hill would receive a little over one week of leave, as opposed to the three-plus weeks that had previously been approved.

Hill responded with a letter of her own a week later.3 Among other things, Hill wrote that:

I will return to work on Monday, June 20, 2011 per the advisement of my doctor. I have Comp time as well as annual leave. I've completed my leave slips as well as my time sheets and I turned all documents in to Mrs. Thomas. Upon returning to work, I will have remaining annual leave and comp time.

I ask that you respect my time off for medical leave and allow me to have a full recovery before returning to work. I ask that you respect I have a family and I must be well enough to care for myself and my family before I can care for the needs of others.

[918 F.Supp.2d 826]

I know of four other employees that work and have worked for the Agency and no one harassed them while they were on medical leave. Mrs. Walker, as a professional and as County Supervisor, I ask that you give me the same respect. Mrs. Walker, it's very unprofessional and unethical of you to send me certified letters demanding I return to work while I'm on medical leave and against my doctor's orders.

Therefore, I anticipate the receipt of my doctor's excuse, leave slips and time sheets suffice according to policy. I don't anticipate any more certified letters demanding I return to work before being released from my doctor. I also don't anticipate any disruptions in my pay as I've turned in all needed documents to maintain my pay as I'm on medical leave.

Any and all concerns may be addressed upon my return to work on Monday, June 20, 2011 per my doctor's orders.

Id. at 63.

Hill did not return to work on June 6. Instead, she stayed home and slept, read, meditated, spent time with her family, and exercised. Walker thereafter sent Hill a letter, dated June 17, stating that she was being terminated for violating DHS Policy 1084.3.2,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Orr v. City of Rogers
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas
    • 3 Febrero 2017
    ...is also no question that the City took an adverse employment action against her by terminating her employment. E.g.,Hill v. Walker , 918 F.Supp.2d 819, 828 (E.D. Ark. 2013) (noting that termination "undoubtedly constitutes an adverse employment action").The only question remaining, then, is......
  • Davis v. Crescent Elec. Supply, Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • 5 Agosto 2016
    ...that claims of retaliation generally require more than mere temporal connection)) (emphasis in original). See Hill v. Walker , 918 F.Supp.2d 819, 833 (E.D.Ark.2013) (citing Smith v. Allen Health Sys. Inc. , 302 F.3d 827, 833 (8th Cir.2002) (two weeks "barely" sufficient for causation)) ("In......
  • Adams v. Persona, Inc., CIV 14–4191.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • 21 Agosto 2015
    ...was subject to adverse employment action. Termination of employment undeniably constitutes adverse employment action. Hill v. Walker, 918 F.Supp.2d 819, 828 (E.D.Ark.2013) (citing Dropinski v. Douglas Cnty., 298 F.3d 704, 707 (8th Cir.2002) ), aff'd, 737 F.3d 1209 (8th Cir.2013). Plaintiff,......
  • Davis v. Crescent Elec. Supply, Co., CIV 12-5008
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • 5 Agosto 2016
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT