Jefferson v. Biogen Idec Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 5:11-CV-237-F,5:11-CV-237-F |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Parties | LESONYA JEFFERSON, Plaintiff, v. BIOGEN IDEC INC., Defendant. |
This matter is before the court on the Motion for Summary Judgment [DE-30] filed by Defendant Biogen Idec, Inc. ("Biogen"). Plaintiff LeSonya Jefferson ("Jefferson") has filed a response, and Biogen has replied. Additionally, Jefferson has filed a surreply, in response to which Biogen has filed a Motion to Strike [DE-38]. Both the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Motion to Strike are ripe for ruling.
On April 13, 2011, Jefferson initiated this action by filing a Complaint in the North Carolina General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, in Wake County. In the Complaint, Jefferson alleged Biogen "violated the North Carolina Constitution by discriminating against Plaintiff due to her disability" and "violated the public policy of the State of North Carolina by terminating Plaintiff's employment based on her disability." Notice of Removal, Ex. A, Compl. [DE-1-1] ¶ 26. In her "Claim for Relief Jefferson alleged Biogen "intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the North Carolina Persons with Disabilities Protection Act by its discharge of her, in that it discharged her because it regarded her as disabled and because she had a record of disability." Id. ¶ 30.
On May 12, 2011, Biogen removed the action to this court, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and filed an Answer [DE-2] to the complaint. On July 1, 2011, Jefferson filed a document entitled "Amended Complaint" [DE-11], In an order filed on August 12, 2011 [DE-18], the court deemed the "Amended Complaint" to be a motion to amend the complaint, which the court denied. Biogen now moves for summary judgment on any and all claims alleged in the Complaint.
In the light most favorable to Jefferson, the facts are as follows:
Starting in 2010, Jefferson began to take leave from work under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., in order to take her daughter to allergy shot appointments. At Biogen, FMLA leaves, as well as requests for short term disability ("STD") and long term disability ("LTD") benefits, are administered by a third-party provider, Matrix. Biogen, therefore, typically is not made aware of the reasons for an employee's leave request. Instead, for purposes of FMLA leave and STD determinations, the personal medical information provided in support of such leaves is directed to and reviewed by Matrix personnel. Biogen Human Resources, in contrast, is only notified of the requests for FMLA leave and STD benefits and the expected return to work date; Biogen Human Resources is not told of the reasons, nor provided with copies of the medical information provided in support of claims for FMLA leaves or STD benefits. Matrix approved Jefferson's request for FMLA leave to care for her daughter.
Thereafter, beginning June 24, 2010, Jefferson again requested and was approved by Matrix for FMLA leave from work due to her own health condition, severe back pain. She then had breast reduction surgery on June 29, 2010. After the breast reduction surgery, Jefferson stillwas experiencing back pain despite engaging in physical therapy. She then underwent back surgery on September 7, 2010 to help alleviate her back pain. Following her surgery, she was released from the hospital on September 11, 2010, into the care of her parents.
Meanwhile, by August 24, 2010, Jefferson had exhausted all of her FMLA leave provided under the law. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., Biogen sent Jefferson a letter on August 24, 2010, via overnight mail, which stated in pertinent part the following:
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 919-993-6135 [.] Dep. of LeSonya Jefferson, Ex. 5 [DE-31] at p. 44. Attached to the letter was a "Healthcare Provider Disability and Accommodation Questionnaire" for Jefferson's healthcare provider tocomplete. Id. at pp. 46-48.
Jefferson admits that she received the letter, albeit after the September 7, 2010, deadline, because she had no one to retrieve the letter for her from the post office. When Jefferson did not respond to the letter, Heather Bo wen,1 a Biogen human resources employee, called and left a voicemail for Jefferson following up on the letter. Jefferson contends she received both the August 24, 2010, letter and Bowen's voicemail on September 13, 2010, and she called Bowen back and left a voicemail. Jefferson contends in the voicemail she informed Bowen she had just been released from the hospital and was housebound and bedridden. She told Bowen in the message she would "have somebody go by and check on it and get everything" and she asked Bowen to give her a call. Dep. of LeSonya Jefferson [DE-31-2] at pp. 127-28.
In response, Biogen sent another letter to Jefferson on September 13, 2010. It was practically identical to the August 24, 2010, letter, except that it requested information from Jefferson and her healthcare provider by the close of business on September 22, 2010. Dep. of LeSonya Jefferson, Ex. 6 [DE-31-2] at p. 49. Jefferson contends she again received the letter after Biogen's stated deadline, but she called and left another message for Bowen.
Bowen called Jefferson on September 30, 2010. Jefferson contends she had just taken medication and "was out of it completely," although she does remember numerous details of the conversation. Dep. of LeSonya Jefferson [DE-31-2] at pp. 129-30. During the conversation, Bowen asked Jefferson if she had received the paperwork from Biogen, and if she was trying to ignore the letters. Jefferson responded that she had received the letters, but she did notunderstand why, because she had sent "everything" to Matrix. Bowen informed Jefferson she also had to send the requested information to Biogen. Jefferson contends she told Bowen she did not understand, and Bowen explained that Biogen also needed the information so it could make accommodations for her. Jefferson responded that she did not need any accommodations because she was in bed and not able to do anything at that point. Jefferson also questioned why Biogen could not get the information from Matrix. Id. at pp. 129-31.
In response, Bowen asked, "So you're telling me you're not going to send it in?" Id. at p. 131. Jefferson replied that was not what she was saying, but rather she did not understand the process. She also told Bowen she was on heavy medication and "the dots are not connecting right now." Id. . Jefferson also questioned whether sending the requested information to Biogen would compromise her privacy. Jefferson and Bowen then ended the conversation.
Jefferson contends she called Bowen back within the next day or so, but did not receive a response from her. Instead, on October 6, 2010, Biogen sent another letter to Jefferson, captioned "Employment Status." The letter stated, in pertinent part:
Dep. of LeSonya Jefferson, Ex. 7 [DE-31-2] at p. 54.
Jefferson admits receiving the letter. She called one of her doctors, trying to find out if he was not sending information to Matrix. She did not send the Biogen questionnaire to the doctor, however, because she felt it covered the same information the doctor was sending to Matrix. Jefferson notes that written policies from Biogen and correspondence from Matrix indicate that she was to communicate with Matrix regarding her leave. See Notification and Approval Process for Extended Absence-US [DE-35-4] (instructing employees to notify a supervisor as soon as possible if the employee needs a leave of absence and then "notify Matrix/Reliance Standard ... to initiate certification and ongoing administration of your claim"); Family Medical and Leave Act-US [DE-35-8] ("If an FMLA or non-FMLA medical...
To continue reading
Request your trial