Huitt v. Optum Health Servs.

• Decision Date: 01 November 2016
• Docket Number: 3:14–CV–01064–BR
• Citation: 216 F.Supp.3d 1179
• Parties: Susan HUITT, Plaintiff, v. OPTUM HEALTH SERVICES, a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Health Group, Inc., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

216 F.Supp.3d 1179

Susan HUITT, Plaintiff,

v.OPTUM HEALTH SERVICES, a wholly-owned subsidiary of United Health Group, Inc., Defendant.

3:14–CV–01064–BR

United States District Court, D. Oregon.

Signed November 01, 2016

SUSAN HUITT, 16617 S.E. Naegeli Drive, Portland, OR, 97236 (503) 465–6639, Plaintiff, Pro Se

SARAH J. RYAN, APRIL L. UPCHURCH FREDRICKSON, Jackson Lewis PC, 1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1205, Portland, OR, 97204 (503) 345–4162, Attorneys for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

ANNA J. BROWN, United States District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion (# 87) for Summary Judgment of Defendant Optum Health Services.¹ For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the parties' summary-judgment materials and are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

Defendant employed Plaintiff Susan Huitt as a WorkLife Resource & Referral Consultant (RRC) from October 2005 through April 2014. RRCs are "responsible for providing [United Health Group] UHG² members who call into the Employee Assistance Program [with] three different referrals for various services in their local area." Decl. of Mary Kauppila at ¶¶ 3–4. RRCs are required to "complete a minimum number of searches per week in a timely manner." Id. At some point Plaintiff "[took] on, in addition to her regular responsibilities, the task of working on the ‘Admin’ team." Kauppila Decl. at ¶ 5.

In October 2011 Plaintiff began receiving treatment for various medical conditions. Plaintiff's medical benefits were provided by UHG.

Plaintiff reported to WorkLife Resource and Referral Supervisor Erin Cochrun from 2005 through November 2011. Cochrun left Optum in November 2011, and Plaintiff then began reporting to WorkLife Resource and Referral Supervisor Mary Kauppila.

Kauppila testifies in her Declaration that after she had supervised Plaintiff for several months, she was notified by some of Plaintiff's coworkers that Plaintiff completed the number of searches required by Defendant's metrics, but "often took more time than her teammates to complete searches and often worked late to get searches completed." Kauppila Decl. at ¶ 6. Plaintiff's coworkers also reported Plaintiff was unable to complete her work for the Admin team.

In February 2012 Kauppila began discussing her concerns about Plaintiff's job performance with Plaintiff in their monthly one-on-one meetings.

From February 2012 to August 2012 Kauppila received further reports from Plaintiff's coworkers who "complain[ed] about being partnered with [Plaintiff] because they felt they were doing the majority of the work ... [and Plaintiff] had difficulty communicating with team members and with Kauppila and would send unnecessarily lengthy emails." Kauppila Decl. at ¶ 8.

In February 2012 UHG denied Plaintiff's request for reimbursement for "certain treatment" that she had been receiving since October 2011. In March 2012 Plaintiff appealed the denial of treatment to UHG. Plaintiff also contacted the United States Department of Labor (DOL) regarding the denial of treatment. At some point Plaintiff, a DOL employee, and a representative from UHG participated in a conference call regarding the denial of Plaintiff's treatment. Kauppila was not involved in the denial of Plaintiff's treatment and was not aware of the conference call until August 6, 2012.

On July 22, 2012, Plaintiff submitted a second-level appeal to UHG regarding the denial of benefits. Kauppila was unaware of Plaintiff's second-level appeal until August 6, 2012.

In August 2012 Kauppila and the manager of the Resource & Referral Team, Sarah Zaniewski, concluded the added responsibilities of the Admin team were too much for Plaintiff in combination with her job duties. Accordingly, on August 6, 2012, Kauppila met with Plaintiff and explained to her that Kauppila had noticed Plaintiff was unable to keep up with her regular duties in a regular work day. Kauppila also told Plaintiff that she had received complaints from some of Plaintiff's coworkers, including A.J., who did not want to be partnered with Plaintiff. Kauppila then informed Plaintiff that she was being removed from the Admin team. Plaintiff did not suffer any decrease in compensation or benefits as a result of being removed from the Admin team nor was she given more burdensome work. In fact, her essential job duties remained the same.

During the August 6, 2012, meeting but after Kauppila informed Plaintiff that she was being removed from the Admin team and that A.J. had complained about her, Plaintiff told Kauppila that A.J. had given her work computer user name and password to a neighbor and had allowed the neighbor to use her work computer. Plaintiff believed A.J.'s actions violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Plaintiff testified at deposition that she did not advise Kauppila or other managers about A.J.'s actions before the August 6, 2012, meeting because she "didn't want to see anything happen to [A.J.] in a negative way." Decl. of April Upchurch Fredrickson, Ex. A at 12. Kauppila advised Zaniewski about Plaintiff's allegation against A.J.

Zaniewski consulted with Defendant's Human Resources Department (HRDirect), which advised her to speak with A.J. directly about Plaintiff's allegation. When Zaniewski spoke with A.J., A.J. denied Plaintiff's allegation and clarified she had permitted her neighbor to use her home computer rather than her work computer. Zaniewski and HRDirect ultimately concluded Plaintiff's allegation could not be substantiated and that further steps to address the issue were not required.

On August 22, 2012, Plaintiff asked Kauppila for a written explanation for her removal from the Admin team. Kauppila responded with a memorandum in which she noted:

Several people on the Admin team have direct feedback to me about [Plaintiff's] performance when they were partnered with her on Admin. They felt that when they were partnered with [Plaintiff] that the burden for the Admin work was not shared. They did not experience the same partnership and delegating of responsibilities that they did with other Admin team members and they "dreaded" being partnered with her. They stated that they would ask [Plaintiff] if she could assist with some part of the Admin responsibilities and she provided a "reason" or an "excuse" for why she was unable to help. Several said they simply stopped asking or providing feedback because they got tired of always hearing a reason for why she was not available to help.

The other late Admin team members also stated that when [Plaintiff] was on Admin they would often have to stay late to make sure all of their responsibilities were completed and that did not happen when they were partnered with other people.

[Plaintiff] became overwhelmed at times with managing the demands of Admin in addition to her other daily responsibilities as an RRC including not responding in a timely manner to emails or not responding at all and not completing her self assignment in a timely manner.

There was also a concern with [Plaintiff's] email communications related to Admin. [Plaintiff] was taking too much time out of her day creating her communications and her team mates and management were taking too much time deciphering [Plaintiff's] communications because they were lengthy and confusing. I also experienced having to re-hash the same issue with [Plaintiff] and had to ask her to be willing to put things behind her once they have been discussed because an inordinate amount of time was spent discussing the same issue which was causing frustration and again, taking too much time out of our day.

Kauppila Decl., Ex. G.

Defendant alleges Plaintiff's performance failed to improve. On August 26, 2012, Kauppila and Zaniewski drafted an interim review for Plaintiff that included a rating of "needs improvement." Kauppila and Zaniewski asked Plaintiff to complete a self-evaluation in order to assess and to discuss Plaintiff's interim review. Plaintiff, however, never completed her self-evaluation.

On August 29, 2012, Plaintiff was off from work sick.

On August 30, 2012, Kauppila and Zaniewski drafted a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that provided Plaintiff with 90 days to improve her performance.

On August 30, 2012, before Kauppila and Zaniewski were able to meet with Plaintiff or to present her with her interim review of CAP, Plaintiff emailed Kauppila and Zaniewski and advised them that her doctor had placed her on short-term disability leave due to her "serious medical condition," that she would be on leave longer than five days, and that she would be filing a claim for short-term disability benefits through Sedgwick (UHG's third-party administrator of short-term disability). Plaintiff then began a leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Plaintiff did not return to work after August 29, 2012, and exhausted her FMLA leave by October 31, 2012. After October 31, 2012, Plaintiff was on a leave of absence without pay until April 2, 2014, at which point Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment because she could not return to work.

In March 2013 while Plaintiff was on her leave of absence, she registered a complaint with HRDirect alleging Sedgwick violated HIPAA when it left a copy of Plaintiff's medical records unattended on her front doorstep. HRDirect investigated and in October 2013 determined Plaintiff's complaint was "without merit." Fredrickson Decl., Ex. H at 2.

On July 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) in which she alleged Defendant: (1) violated Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.199 when it subjected her to "a hostile working environment and discriminatory treatment" after she reported to Defendant what Plaintiff "believed were possible violations of HIPPA [sic ] and other privacy laws by certain other employees" and (2) violated Oregon Revised Statute § 659A.112 when it subjected her to "a hostile working environment due in...