Hines v. Humana Ins. Co.
| Docket Number | 1:21-cv-0409 |
| Decision Date | 30 August 2023 |
| Parties | BRANDON HINES, Plaintiff, v. HUMANA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
This matter comes before this Court on Defendant Humana Insurance Company's (“Humana”) Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 32). For the reasons stated more fully below, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED IN PART, and DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff Brandon Hines was hired as a Customer Care Specialist for Defendant Humana on August 8, 2016. (ECF No. 29 at 28:5-11). In that position, Hines answered incoming customer calls and resolved their complaints and questions. (ECF No. 32 at 5). In the fall of 2017, Plaintiff applied for four different jobs within the company, but was denied from all. Two of the positions were given to a white woman and a Black woman. (ECF No. 37 at 1). On January 25, 2018, Hines filed a complaint with Humana alleging unfair treatment, favoritism, and conflict of interest, (see ECF No. 32 at 9), stating that he did not trust Humana's hiring process because of previous job experiences as a member of a “certain demographic,” which he stated in his deposition to mean his status as a Black man. (ECF Nos. 29 at 100; 37 at 2). Plaintiff also raised the same concerns when speaking with an associate. (ECF No. 29 at 64:14-23). Humana closed the complaint on March 14, 2018, finding his allegations unfounded. (ECF No. 37 at 2)
In April 2018, due to excellent performance, Hines was transferred to a new team supervised by Domonique Romero. (Id. at 3). Hines then submitted ideas to Humana's STAR awards program which encouraged suggestions for improving efficiency and provided monetary prizes for implemented suggestions. (ECF No. 32 at 11). Hines indicated to Romero that Humana had implemented one of his suggestions without crediting him and inquired about other suggestions he had made.[1] (ECF No. 37 at 3). In June 2018, Hines emailed Carol Perkins, Romero's supervisor, and submitted another formal complaint reiterating his previous concerns raising concern about not being informed that he had received a STAR award despite receiving the monetary award, and put in his two weeks' notice.[2] (ECF Nos. 32 at 11; 37 at 4). While Plaintiff did not resign, he indicated that his emotional state was poor. (ECF No. 37 at 4).
In July 2018, Hines started mental health treatment and was approved for twelve weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) from July 24, 2018 to October 15, 2018. (ECF No. 32 at 5, 12-13). On September 12, 2018, UNUM, Humana's third-party administrator for leave and disability requests, approved Hines for short term disability (“STD”) through September 30, 2018. (Id. at 13). At the end of September, Hines' doctor informed UNUM that Hines needed medical leave until November 7, 2018, but that he could return to work after. (Id.).
On November 7, 2018, Hines returned to work for one day, but said he could not answer the phones.[3] (Id. at 5, 14). Hines alleges on that day he was confronted by Ranesha Jenkins, his former supervisor, about the need for a doctor's note and was “berated” by Alex Tipton, Romero's backup. (ECF No. 37 at 5). He was diagnosed with depression and began treatment but did not return to work. (ECF No. 32 at 15). On November 16, 2018, Hines' FMLA was exhausted, and he was required to return to work on November 21, 2018. (Id.). On November 27, 2018, however, UNUM notified Humana that Hines was approved for STD benefits beginning November 14, 2018 to December 14, 2018. (Id.).
On January 24, 2019, UNUM approved Hines' STD benefits through February 1, 2019, but if he could not return to work on February 2, 2019, he needed to provide supporting medical records and a return-to-work plan. (Id.). On February 1, 2019, Hines' STD benefits were approved through February 13, 2019, but required he provide the same supporting documentation if he could not return to work on February 14, 2019. (Id. at 16). On February 25, 2019, Penny Hodgkins, UNUM's lead Disability Benefits Specialist, sent Hines' doctors a questionnaire to confirm his medical status. His therapist and primary care physician responded that Plaintiff had a continuing disability but would be able to return to work part time or full time in April or May 2019. (Id. at 6). UNUM approved Hines' STD benefits through March 6, 2019-hitting the twenty-six-week maximum for STD benefits-and a copy of the letter was sent to Humana. (Id.; No. 32-1, ¶ 5).
On March 19, 2019, UNUM informed Hines that his STD benefits had been exhausted and were closed. (ECF No. 32 at 16). Separately, Ericka O'Connell, of Human Resources (“HR”), emailed Hodgkins asking when Hines would be eligible for long term disability (“LTD”) benefits, and Hodgkins responded that Hines was eligible. (ECF No. 37 at 7). On March 22, 2019, O'Connell directed Romero to send Hines a return to work (“RTW”) letter telling Hines to contact Romero to “request an extension under [the] ADA” if not released to work. (Id.). On March 25, 2019, Romero sent Hines a letter informing him that his FMLA and STD benefits were exhausted, and that he had to return to work by March 29, 2019 with a doctor's release. (Id.). Romero did not tell Hines that he could request a leave extension under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and incorrectly stated that his recent STD request was denied. (Id. at 8). Hines argues that O'Connell understood, per UNUM, that he needed to be off work through March 2019. (Id.).
On March 29, 2019, Hines emails Romero and Carolyn Jackson, a Humana HR Partner: (ECF No. 32 at 16). On April 1, 2019, O'Connell instructed Jackson to send Hines the “ADA packet” for him to seek LTD, but the packet was never sent. (ECF No. 37 at 9). That same day, Perkins, Romero's supervisor, informed O'Connell that she and Romero supported Hines' termination. (Id.). That same day, Hines also contacted Hodgkins at UNUM to set up LTD benefits. (Id.). Hodgkins informed Hines, through a message, that his LTD claim would be reviewed with a transition date of May 14, 2019. (Id.). While Hodgkins claimed that the March 19, 2019 letter included these details, it was not included in Hines' letter. (Id.).
On April 4, 2019, O'Connell informed Perkins, Romero, and Jackson that Hines' termination was justified because Hines did not stay in contact with Humana and provided untimely responses. (Id. at 9-10). That same day, Hines was informed that his failure to substantiate his continue absence was considered a voluntary resignation effective March 29, 2019. (ECF No. 32 at 17). Subsequently, on April 24, 2019, however, UNUM advised Plaintiff and Romero that Hines' LTD claim was under review. (ECF No. 37 at 11). Finally, on May 14, 2019, Humana sent Hines a letter demanding he return his work equipment. (Id.). Hines replied on May 21, 2019 that he did not intend to resign and would not comply with the letter because he was approved for LTD benefits. (ECF No. 32 at 17).
Plaintiff was released by his doctors to return to work on June 24, 2019. (ECF No. 37-1, ¶ 10). This Court, however, does not have any information to indicate that Mr. Hines was reinstated by Humana, resulting in the present litigation.
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). This Court's function at the summary judgment stage is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). This Court asks “whether ‘the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.'” Patton v. Bearden, 8 F.3d 343, 346 (6th Cir. 1993) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52). “[S]ummary judgment will not lie if the dispute is about a material fact that is ‘genuine,' that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. And “there is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party,” but evidence that is “merely colorable” or “not significantly probative,” however, is not enough to defeat summary judgment. Id. at 249-50.
The party seeking summary judgment carries the initial burden of presenting this Court with law and argument in support of its motion as well as identifying the relevant portions of “‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56). If this initial burden is satisfied, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); see Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.
This Court “views factual evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.” Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502, 511 (6th Cir. 2009). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence to support [the non-moving party's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial