Jakomas v. City of Pittsburgh

• Decision Date: 24 October 2018
• Docket Number: 2:16-cv-00220
• Citation: 342 F.Supp.3d 632
• Parties: Dawn JAKOMAS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

342 F.Supp.3d 632

Dawn JAKOMAS, Plaintiff,

v.CITY OF PITTSBURGH, Defendant.

2:16-cv-00220

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

Signed October 24, 2018

Joel S. Sansone, Elizabeth Tuttle, Massimo A. Terzigni, Law Offices of Joel Sansone, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff.

Kezia O. L. Taylor, Matthew S. McHale, Stephanie L. Manko, City of Pittsburgh Law Department, Lourdes Sanchez Ridge, Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Defendant.

OPINION

Mark R. Hornak, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Dawn Jakomas ("Plaintiff") was diagnosed with potentially cancerous tumors and her former employer—the City of Pittsburgh (the "City")—was made aware of that. Though later found to be non-cancerous, Plaintiff's tumors required surgery. Plaintiff took an approximately one-year, City-approved leave from her employment, beginning in February, 2014, for treatment. Plaintiff contends that she was demoted on the day before her leave began, and then filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") against the City while on leave. Upon her return to work in February, 2015, Plaintiff alleges that she was subsequently stripped of additional job duties and responsibilities and subjected to unwarranted disciplinary actions before being terminated from employment by the City in April, 2015.

Plaintiff claims that the City's actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. (the "ADA") (Compl., ECF No. 1). Count I alleges that the City discriminated against Plaintiff due to her medical condition. (Id. ). Count II alleges that the City retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in a protected activity, namely, filing a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. (Id. ).

Now before the Court is the City's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 77). The matter has been fully briefed and the Motion is now ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the City's motion will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was an at-will employee in the City's Equal Opportunity Review Commission (the "EORC"). (Def's Statement of Material Facts in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. ("Def.'s SMF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 79). Plaintiff was primarily employed as an Administrator during her employment, but had assumed the duties and responsibilities of an Acting Manager in or about October, 2013, due to a vacancy. (Pl.'s Counter Statement of Facts ("Pl.'s CSF") ¶ 36, ECF No. 86, Pl.'s CSF, Exh. B, ECF No. 86-2). Pursuant to the City's Acting Pay Policy, Plaintiff was paid more while she performed the duties of an Acting Manager. (Def.'s Reply to Pl.'s Counter Statement of Add'l Material Facts ("Def.'s Reply CSF") ¶ 38, ECF No. 92).

Sometime in late 2013 or early 2014, Plaintiff received her diagnosis.¹ Plaintiff's condition required surgical treatment, and Plaintiff commenced an extended medical leave on February 21, 2014, under the Family Medical Leave Act (the "FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq. (Pl.'s CSF ¶ 37; Def.'s Reply CSF, Exh. A at 5–6, ECF No. 94-1). The City was aware of Plaintiff's medical condition prior to her beginning that medical leave. (Id. ). One day prior to going on leave, on February 20, 2014, the City informed Plaintiff that she would no longer be performing the duties of Acting Manager of the EORC. (Pl.'s CSF ¶ 38). Plaintiff stopped receiving "acting pay" for her position as Acting Manager on February 21, 2014, (Def.'s SMF ¶ 9), and was relieved of managerial duties and supervisory responsibilities on the same date. (Pl.'s CSF ¶ 38). Plaintiff classifies this action as a demotion. (Id. ). While on leave, on November 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC claiming that she was unlawfully discriminated against due to a "perceived disability" of cancer. (Pl.'s SMF, Exh. R, ECF No. 86-20).

Plaintiff returned to work as an Administrator in the EORC on February 9, 2015, without physical restrictions. (Def.'s SMF ¶ 12). On February 10, 2015, Plaintiff met with her supervisor—Ms. Valerie McDonald Roberts—to discuss what Plaintiff characterized as a reduction of her supervisory duties in the EORC office. (Id. ¶ 16; Valerie McDonald Roberts Dep. ("VMR Dep.") at 199:9–17, ECF No. 86-9). Upon her return, Plaintiff was also directed by Ms. McDonald Roberts to organize and clean the EORC office, including the offices of two of her subordinates, in order to "assess[ ] her skills." (VMR Dep. at 113:13–25, 115:13–15; see also Dawn Jakomas Dep. ("Jakomas Dep.") at 35:2–24, ECF No. 86-4). Organizing and cleaning the EORC offices are not among the listed duties in the City's job description for the EORC Administrator. (Pl.'s CSF, Exh. T, ECF No. 86-22).

Ms. McDonald Roberts introduced several new and applicable policies for the office on March 3, 2015. (Def.'s SMF ¶ 18). Among these new policies were requirements for employees to sign in to the office no later than 8:30 AM for an 8:00 AM start time, documenting all time out of the office on a calendar that Ms. McDonald Roberts could access, requesting all time off at least forty-eight hours in advance, and providing documentation for any emergency time off. (Id. ). Plaintiff was made aware of these policies. (Id. ).

During the final two months of her employment with the City, Plaintiff was disciplined several times for what the City considered to be various acts of insubordination and failure to follow office policies. These events (as described by the City) include:

• February 17, 2015 – a verbal reprimand for making false unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks toward Valerie McDonald Roberts and disrespectful language and behavior.

• March 3, 2015 – a verbal reprimand for false unsubstantiated allegations, disrespectful behavior, and personal attacks toward Valerie McDonald Roberts.

• March 5, 2015 – was not disciplined, but called off work late due to a car accident and did not report to work.

• March 11, 2015 – called off late by twenty minutes for an unscheduled doctor's appointment.

• March 12, 2015 – called off late by seven hours, was instructed to report to the front desk promptly at 8:30 AM with a doctor's excuse for her absences on March 11, 12, and 13.

• March 16, 2015 – a verbal reprimand for insubordination for signing in late.

• March 17, 2015 – a written reprimand for signing in late and exhibiting disrespectful behavior and making false unsubstantiated allegations toward Valerie McDonald Roberts.

• March 18, 2015 – a written reprimand with warning of a one-day suspension for failing to sign in to work and asking another employee to sign in for her.

• March 23, 2015 – a one-day suspension for calling off work to reportedly take her husband to the emergency room and refusing to provide documentation of the incident.

• March 25, 2015 – a three-day suspension for calling off work late and signing in late due to becoming ill in the office parking lot.

• March 30, 2015 – a five-day suspension pending termination for signing in at 8:15 AM but writing 8:00 AM on the sign in sheet, not updating her personal calendar to grant Valerie McDonald Roberts access, not inputting a doctor's appointment on her calendar, and leaving the office without prior approval and without signing out.

(Pl.'s CSF, Exh. 5, ECF No. 86-15). All told, Plaintiff received three progressively more severe suspensions, culminating in her eventual termination from employment. (Def.'s SMF ¶ 26). Insubordination was at least part of the City's basis for each of the three suspensions. (Id ). On March 31, 2015, the City gave Plaintiff an opportunity to explain why her employment should not be terminated in response to a five-day suspension pending termination, and Plaintiff did not provide an explanation. (Id. ¶ 28; Pl.'s CSF, Exh. HH, ECF No. 86-36). Plaintiff was informed via letter dated April 14, 2015, that her employment was terminated as of April 9, 2015. (Pl.'s CSF, Exh. NN, ECF No. 86-42).

II. STANDARD FOR REVIEW

A court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment must be granted "after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [her] favor." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co. , 398 U.S. 144, 158–59, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970) ). But, "[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-movant's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating that there are no genuine disputes of material fact. Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc. , 974 F.2d 1358, 1362 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Celotex , 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ). If the moving party satisfies this burden, the opposing party must designate specific facts in the record that show that there is a genuine factual dispute to be resolved at trial. Celotex , 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The non-moving party may rely on its own affidavits or on the "depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file" to designate these facts, but may not rely solely on its own pleadings. Id. ; see also Williams v. Borough of West Chester , 891 F.2d 458, 460 (3d Cir. 1989).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff asserts that the City discriminated against her in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) on two occasions:² by demoting...