Keliipuleole v. Molokai Ohana Health Care Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 May 2022
• Docket Number: CIVIL 21-00170 JAO-KJM
• Parties: LORNA KELIIPULEOLE, Plaintiff, v. MOLOKAI OHANA HEALTH CARE INC. DBA “MOLOKAI COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER”, DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, DOE CORPORATE ENTITIES 1-20, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

LORNA KELIIPULEOLE, Plaintiff, v. MOLOKAI OHANA HEALTH CARE INC. DBA “MOLOKAI COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER”, DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, DOE CORPORATE ENTITIES 1-20, Defendants.

CIVIL No. 21-00170 JAO-KJM

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

May 2, 2022

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JILL A. OTAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Lorna Keliipuleole (“Plaintiff”) sues her former employer Molokai Ohana Health Care Inc. (“Defendant”) for (1) age discrimination pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623, and Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 378-2; (2) retaliation in violation of the Hawai‘i Whistleblowers' Protection Act (“HWPA”), HRS § 378-62; and (3) unlawful termination in contravention of public policy. See ECF No. 2 at 7-10.

Defendant now moves for summary judgment on all claims (“Motion”). See ECF No. 35.

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion as to Plaintiff's ADEA claim and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

I. Background

A. Facts

Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed.

Defendant is a community-owned non-profit and the only federally qualified health center on Moloka‘i. ECF No. 36 ¶ 1. On January 27, 2020, it hired Plaintiff as a Patient Services Associate/Medical Assistant. Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiff was 53 years old. Id. Plaintiff's supervisor was Clinical Office Manager Sheries Hana Spencer (“Spencer”). Id. ¶ 9. When Plaintiff was hired, she received the Employee Handbook (“Handbook”). Id. ¶ 5; see ECF No. 45 at 2 (Plaintiff's admission that she received a November 2019 version of the Handbook); ECF No. 49 ¶ 5. The Handbook identified conduct that could result in discipline or discharge. ECF No. 36 ¶ 4. Early in her tenure, Plaintiff took part in various trainings, including an annual compliance training that purportedly reviewed all of Defendant's policies. See id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff admits to participating in the training but disputes that it covered all of the policies. ECF No. 49 ¶ 7. Similarly, Plaintiff attended a Medical Assistant workflow training, which Defendant asserts included vaccine administration procedure but Plaintiff says it did not. See ECF No. 36 ¶ 8; ECF No. 49 ¶ 8.

Relations between Plaintiff and Spencer were tense. Plaintiff claims that from the time she started working for Defendant, she had to spend a disproportionate amount of time “on the floor” as compared to other employees. See ECF No. 45 ¶ 20. Plaintiff identifies Annie Pua‘a (“Pua‘a”) and Shalia Jensen (“Jensen”) as younger employees who were similarly situated to Plaintiff. Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiff further alleges that within a month of starting Spencer began talking down to Plaintiff in a rude fashion, reprimanding her in front of other employees, and micromanaging her. Id. ¶ 21. Spencer also allegedly chastised Plaintiff in front of patients, deprived her of certain work duties, and required her to cover some of Jensen's duties. See id. ¶¶ 22, 23, 25, 28. Plaintiff asserts that Spencer did not treat the younger employees in the same way. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 20-29. Defendant challenges Plaintiff's assertions. See ECF No. 50 ¶¶ 20-29. Plaintiff also claims that Spencer once told Plaintiff that, “[y]ou all learn differently . . . [Pua‘a] learns faster.” ECF No. 45 ¶ 30. Defendant also denies that Spencer made the statement but fails to provide contrary evidence. See ECF No. 50 ¶ 30.

The event that catalyzed the bulk of Plaintiff's complaints against Defendant began on August 4, 2020. On that day, Plaintiff administered an expired Hepatitis A vaccine to two minors. ECF No. 36 ¶ 10. Plaintiff claims that before giving the shots, she spoke with Spencer who examined the two doses of the vaccine and directed Plaintiff to administer them. ECF No. 45 ¶¶ 10-11. Defendant denies the pre-authorization, ECF No. 50 ¶¶ 10-11, and asserts that Spencer was in a different clinic during the incident, ECF No. 36 ¶ 17. Regardless, after the incident, Plaintiff informed Spencer that she had given the minors expired doses. ECF No. 45 ¶ 12; ECF No. 36-22 at 2. Plaintiff claims that Spencer assured her that she would formally report the incident to Defendant's administration. ECF No. 45 ¶ 12. Spencer seems to have begun filling out a paper Incident Reporting Form on August 5, 2020, but did not complete it until September 14, 2020. See ECF No. 36-23 at 3. But using the paper form contravened Defendant's policies: Defendant had a computerized incident reporting system, the “RL6.” ECF No. 45 ¶¶ 14, 16; ECF No. 50 ¶¶ 14, 16. There is also evidence that using the paper Incident Reporting Form was unusual after the implementation of the RL6 system. See ECF No. 45-10 at 14 (CEO's deposition testimony that she had not seen a paper form since the rollout of the electronic reporting system).

Plaintiff states that a few weeks after the expired vaccine incident, she looked in the minors' medical files and noticed there was no record of the minors' receipt of expired doses. See ECF No. 45 ¶ 32.^[1] In response, on September 2, 2020, Plaintiff filed an RL6 against Spencer for failing to report the expired vaccine incident. See id. ¶32*; see also ECF No. 36-10. Defendant initiated an investigation after receiving Plaintiff's report about the incident. See ECF No. 36 ¶ 16. Spencer claims that she had not been able to speak with a representative from the vaccine manufacturer until September 8, 2020. See ECF No. 36 ¶ 12. After the investigation, Plaintiff and Spencer each received “a record of conversation serving as a verbal warning” for their roles in the expired vaccine incident. See ECF No. 36 ¶ 29. The investigation found that Plaintiff had violated Medical Assistant workflow procedure and that Spencer had violated Defendant's policy for incident reporting. Id. ¶ 28; ECF No. 36-33 at 2-3.

As part of the investigation into the expired vaccine incident, Plaintiff and Spencer met with Defendant's management on September 3, 2020. See ECF No. 36 ¶ 19; ECF No. 45 ¶ 33; ECF No. 45-11 at 1. Plaintiff states that she complained to management that Spencer exhibited favoritism toward Jensen and Pua‘a - allowing Jensen to be absent from or report late to work thereby increasing Plaintiff's workload, and providing additional training to Pua‘a. ECF No. 45 ¶ 33; see also ECF No. 45-11 at 1. Defendant admits that Plaintiff complained of favoritism but notes that Plaintiff never complained of age discrimination. See ECF No. 50 ¶ 33; ECF No. 36 ¶ 21. Plaintiff concedes she never mentioned age discrimination. ECF No. 49 ¶ 21.

The day after the meeting, Plaintiff requested leave, citing “hostile work environment” as the reason. ECF No. 36 ¶ 23. Defendant granted the leave. Id. ¶ 24. While on leave, Plaintiff gave Defendant an account of the issues between her and Spencer. Id. ¶ 26. She did not explicitly mention age discrimination as a problem. Id.; ECF No. 49 ¶ 26. But she sent an eight-page letter detailing various grievances against Spencer. See ECF No. 45-12 at 5; ECF No. 45-13. Plaintiff returned to work on September 14, 2020. ECF No. 36 ¶ 25.

Just a few days later, on September 17, 2020, there was a verbal altercation between Plaintiff and Spencer. Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiff emailed the CEO about the incident, and the CEO responded that Defendant would conduct a neutral review of the incident. See ECF No. 36-39 at 3; ECF No. 36-42 at 2-3. Spencer, meanwhile, filed a grievance against Plaintiff regarding the altercation. ECF No. 36 ¶ 33; ECF No. 36-24; see also ECF No. 36-1 at 5 (explaining that handwritten notes on ECF No. 36-24 were not Spencer's). During the altercation, Spencer apparently noticed that Plaintiff had left her computer screen on and unlocked. See ECF No. 36-24 at 5-6. Spencer reported this alleged violation of Defendant's HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) IT Security Policy. See ECF No. 36 ¶ 35. Spencer counseled Plaintiff about the violation and issued a written warning. Id. ¶ 36; ECF No. 36-26. Plaintiff claims she was never notified about the disciplinary action taken. See ECF No. 49 ¶ 45. The employee signature section on the form is blank. See ECF No. 36-26 at 2. Spencer claims that Plaintiff received but refused to sign the forms. See ECF No. 36 ¶ 45.

In addition to the alleged HIPAA policy violation, Spencer and others reported Plaintiff for various issues during September and October 2020:

• On September 29, 2020, Spencer reported Plaintiff for two separate vaccine-related incidents whereby she allegedly failed to get written consent from the patient or a guardian. See ECF No. 36 ¶ 39. One of the incidents occurred that day, but the other occurred on August 20, 2020 and the unsigned form was discovered “by some coincidence.” See ECF No. 36-28 at 2, 5. Spencer issued a written warning for the violations. ECF No 36-30. Plaintiff claims she never received the warning. See ECF No. 49 ¶ 45. The employee signature section on the form is blank. ECF No. 36-30 at 2. Spencer claims that Plaintiff received but refused to sign the forms. See ECF No. 36 ¶ 45.

• On October 2, 2020, Dr. Mark Hoover reported that Plaintiff had stuck herself with a needle. See ECF No. 36 ¶ 41. The doctor documented that Spencer had notified him that Plaintiff had stuck herself. See ECF No. 3618 at 2. He verbally discussed the incident with Plaintiff. Id.

• On October 12, 2020, Spencer reported that Plaintiff was about to draw a vaccine shot prior to approval from the provider. See ECF No. 36 ¶ 42. She wrote Plaintiff up for a Medical Assistant workflow violation. See ECF No. 36-32 at 2. Plaintiff claims she was never notified of the disciplinary action taken. See ECF No. 49 ¶ 45. The employee signature section on the form is blank. ECF

...