Jurach v. Safety Vision, LLC

• Decision Date: 12 December 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. H–14–044.
• Parties: Jaclyn R. JURACH, Plaintiff, v. SAFETY VISION, LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

72 F.Supp.3d 698

Jaclyn R. JURACH, Plaintiff

v.SAFETY VISION, LLC, Defendant.

Civil Action No. H–14–044.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.

Signed Dec. 12, 2014.

Jacqueline A. Armstrong, Attorney at Law, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.

Mark Joseph Oberti, Oberti Sullivan LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION

LEE H. ROSENTHAL, District Judge.

Jaclyn Jurach sued her former employer, Safety Vision, LLC, in state court. Jurach claimed that she was disabled, that Safety Vision failed to accommodate her disability, and that it fired her for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons. (Docket Entry No. 1, Ex. 2; Docket Entry No. 7, Ex. 4). Safety Vision timely removed, and after discovery, moved for summary judgment. (Docket Entry Nos. 1, 15). Jurach responded, and Safety Vision replied. (Docket Entry Nos. 19, 28). Based on the pleadings; the motion, response, and reply; and the applicable law, the court grants the motion for summary judgment and enters final judgment by separate order. The reasons are explained below.

I. Background

Jaclyn Jurach worked at Safety Vision from January 2006 to October 14, 2010. She was hired as the Trade Show Coordinator and Service and Warranty Manager. (Docket Entry No. 20, Ex. A, Jurach Affidavit at ¶¶ 2–3). In May 2007, her job functions were split into two positions, and she became the Trade Show Coordinator. (Id. at ¶ 5). Jurach is disabled¹ due to a detached retina, eye surgery, and a condition called Mydriasis. (Id. at ¶¶ 8–11, 19). Since at least January 2006, Jurach's condition has caused her to have headaches when working in fluorescent light. (Id. ). Jurach alleges that her eye problems are best accommodated by working in a room with natural light, working with no fluorescent lights and lamp illumination only, or working in an area where she can face a wall and turn off the fluorescent lights in front of her and above her head. (Id. at ¶ 12).

When she first started working at Safety Vision, Jurach worked in a cubicle with fluorescent lights overhead. (Id. at ¶¶ 12–13). She complained to Safety Vision about her work environment, telling the company that her small computer monitor caused her pain because of her disability. (Docket Entry No. 15, Ex. A, Jurach Depo. at 143). Safety Vision gave Jurach a larger monitor. (Id. at 140–41). Jurach complained more about her eye problems. (Jurach Affidavit at ¶ 13). After an extended personal absence from July to November 2006, Jurach returned to work at Safety Vision and was assigned a cubicle next to a window that gave her natural light. (Jurach Depo. at 137–38). Jurach also turned her desk to face toward a wall, away from fluorescent lights so that they were not in front of her or above her. (Id. ).

Despite the reduced fluorescent light and the natural light, Jurach complained, stating that the fluorescent lights behind her cubicle aggravated her disability. (Jurach Affidavit at ¶ 13). In late 2007, Jurach asked to be moved to a large interior office on another floor. Safety Vision agreed to let Jurach work in the large interior office she had identified, along with another employee. (Id. at ¶ 14). The other employee allowed Jurach to take out some of the fluorescent lights but not to turn off the lights entirely. (Id. ). Jurach alleged that “[t]his actually turned out to be worse for [her] eyes and [her] headaches grew more painful and more frequent.” (Id. ). Jurach complained again, and asked for another office move. (Id. ).

In September 2008, Safety Vision agreed to Jurach's requests to move to a private office where she could “turn all the lights out” and “disengage many of the [fluorescent] rods above.” (Id. at ¶ 15). Jurach claims that this was “the best work space she had had” at Safety Vision “because she could turn off the overhead lights and work by lamplight.” (Docket Entry No. 19 at 5). But even in the private office, Jurach complained that she suffered from severe migraine headaches. (Jurach Affidavit at ¶ 15). Jurach told Safety Vision that she needed to be moved again, back to an office with natural light, to accommodate her eye problems. (Id. at ¶¶ 16–17). Jurach had been assigned such an office from November 2006 to late 2007, until she requested and was moved to a larger interior office on another floor.

Jurach asked multiple supervisors, the Director of Human Resources, the Chief Operations Officer, and a Human Resources coordinator to allow her to move to an office with a window. (Id. ). She alleges that an office with natural light was available in November 2009 but was given to a “young new engineering employee” instead of to her. (Id. at ¶ 17). Jurach asked Chris Fritz, who was in charge of that area of the building, to let her know if another office with natural light became available. (Id. ).

In February 2010, Jurach had surgery for a detached retina. The surgery left one eye permanently dilated, and Jurach's sensitivity to fluorescent lighting increased. (Id. at ¶ 18). In March 2010, Jurach again asked Fritz for an office with natural light. (Id. at ¶ 22). Fritz told Jurach to talk to Lawrence Rominger, the Operations Manager. Jurach emailed Rominger, but did not receive a reply. (Id. ).

In April 2010, Safety Vision fired an employee who had a window office near Jurach. (Id. at ¶ 23). Jurach asked Tara Pesek, a Human Resources coordinator, to move her to that office. (Id. ). Pesek told Jurach to contact Rominger. Rominger did not give Jurach that window office, but said he would “pay attention to [her] situation” when the offices were reorganized “sometime in the future.” (Id. ). Jurach emphasized that she wanted a private office. (Id. ).

In September 2010, in the reorganization, Jurach's group was moved to cubicles on the top floor of Safety Vision's two-story building. (Id. at ¶ 27). Jurach complained to multiple supervisors and to Bruce Smith, the President and CEO of Safety Vision. (Id. at ¶¶ 29–30). She found that the new space was worse than the offices she had worked in before. She complained that the fluorescent lights gave her headaches, that it was too hot, and that a coworker in her new office area distracted her. (Id. at ¶¶ 30–31). Jurach told Safety Vision that she wanted to have a private office with a door she could close. (Id. ). Jurach asked that the second floor's marketing library, which she described as “being used to hold old magazines and a shredding bin,” be converted to a private office and given to her. (Id. at ¶ 32). Safety Vision did not accept this proposal.

Jurach's manager, Chalon Dilber, talked to Michael Ondruch, Safety Vision's CFO, who then met with Jurach and heard her complaints. (Id. at ¶ 35). Ondruch asked Jurach to get a note from her doctor describing her eye conditions and the appropriate accommodations. (Id. at ¶ 29). On September 27, 2010, Jurach gave Ondruch a letter from her doctor, and Ondruch told her that he would consider her request. (Id. at ¶ 35). The letter stated that Jurach had “severe light sensitivity to her eyes.” (Docket Entry No. 20, Ex. A–8). Ondruch called Jurach's doctor, whose assistant reportedly told him that Jurach could be accommodated with “dimmer lights,” “tinted glasses,” and “fewer hours working on computer monitors.” (Docket Entry No. 15, Ex. B, Ondruch Depo. at 146). In another letter, which Ondruch testified that he did not receive, Jurach's doctor told Safety Vision that “[i]f you can possibly accommodate her to a less lighted area, it would be very beneficial to her.” (Docket Entry No. 20, Ex. A–10).

As as interim measure, Dilber offered Jurach the use of a downstairs conference room. Although meetings were sometimes held there, they were infrequent. (Jurach Affidavit at ¶ 39). Jurach declined, saying that she would prefer to work from home “Monday and Friday afternoons and all day Wednesday.” (Jurach Depo. at 265–66). Safety Vision agreed to this arrangement, and Dilber told Jurach that he would try to find another office for her. (Jurach Affidavit at ¶ 39). On October 7, 2010, Jurach again asked Dilber to convert the marketing library into a private office for her, because the heat and bright lights made work at her cubicle difficult. (Docket Entry No. 20, Ex. A–12).

In 2010, Safety Vision's revenue decreased. Its management decided to lay off staff and reduce salaries. (Ondruch Depo. at 45–49). Safety Vision implemented a three-stage reduction in force. (Id. at 211–12). In total, Safety Vision reduced its work force by 25 percent, firing 24 employees whose annual salaries totaled $1,275,831. (Id. at 60; Docket Entry No. 15, Ex. C). Jurach was laid off during the third and final stage of the reduction in force, on October 14, 2010. (Jurach Depo. at 15). Melissa Foteh, another marketing employee who was not disabled and was paid less than Jurach, took over Jurach's duties. (Docket Entry No. 15 at 12).

Jurach sued Safety Vision in federal court in September 2012 under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). She dismissed her case without prejudice shortly after filing it, and filed a new suit in state court on September 13, 2012, asserting claims under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”), Tex. Lab.Code § 21.001 et seq., and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Docket Entry No. 1, Ex. 2). She amended that petition in September 2013, again asserting only state-law claims. (Docket Entry No. 7, Ex. 3). In January 2014, Jurach asserted ERISA claims in her response to Safety Vision's summary judgment motion. (Docket Entry No. 1). Safety Vision timely removed based on ERISA preemption and, after discovery, moved for summary judgment on all of Jurach's claims. (Docket Entry Nos. 1, 15).

II. The Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “The movant bears the burden of identifying those portions of the record it believes demonstrate the...