King v. Inova Health Care Servs.
| Decision Date | 01 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-31 |
| Parties | ANNE-MARIE KING, Plaintiff, v. INOVA HEALTH CARE SERVICES, d/b/a Inova Health System Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Plaintiff, a registered nurse in the Trauma Intensive Care Unit at Inova Fairfax Hospital, filed this suit after defendant Inova Health System investigated plaintiff for sleeping beyond authorized breaks during her shifts and took disciplinary action against plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that defendant's actions constituted unlawful retaliation against plaintiff for engaging in protected activities under the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. ("FMLA"), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII").
At issue now is defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on plaintiff's FMLA retaliation and Title VII retaliation claims. Defendant's motion has been fully briefed and orally argued and is thus ripe for disposition.
Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact" and based on those undisputed facts the moving party "is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Rule 56, Fed. R. Civ. P. Local Civil Rule 56(B) requires the movant to include in his brief in support of a motion for summary judgment a specifically captioned section listing all material facts as to which the moving party contends there is no genuine issue and citing the parts of the record relied on to support the listed undisputed facts. Local Civ. R. 56(B). Defendant complied with this requirement. The nonmovant must respond to each enumerated fact and either admit or contest by citing to record evidence. Id. Plaintiff substantially complied with this requirement by responding to each fact enumerated by defendant and either admitting or contesting defendant's asserted fact.1 The following list of undisputed facts is derived from defendant's proposed statement of undisputed material facts and plaintiff's responses that dispute defendant's proposed statement of undisputed material facts.
1. Inova is a not-for-profit healthcare system based in Northern Virginia, which employs over 18,000 people.
2. In 2014, Inova hired plaintiff Anne-Marie King as a registered nurse in the Trauma Intensive Care Unit ("TICU") at Inova Fairfax Hospital, and plaintiff is still employed as a registered nurse in the TICU today.
3. From May 2017 until May 2018, Margo Yates-Williams served as an Interim Clinical Director of the TICU and Robert Myers served as the Interim Senior Director of Critical Care, pursuant to a contract between their employer, B.E. Smith, and Inova.2
4. From February to June 2018, Yates-Williams reported directly to Myers, and Myers reported directly to Darcy Allen ("Ms. Allen"), the Assistant Vice President of Nursing at Inova.3 During the same time period, Ms. Allen reported directly to Michelle Vassallo, the AssociateChief Nursing Officer, and Vassallo reported directly to Patricia Hill, the Chief Nursing Officer of Inova Fairfax Hospital.
5. Inova's Human Resources ("HR") Department trains its leaders on Title VII and the FMLA and on Inova's policies prohibiting discrimination and retaliation. Inova employees learn how to access Inova's policies during orientation, including its Code of Conduct and policies prohibiting discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
6. In the summer of 2017, Yates-Williams encouraged plaintiff to apply for one of five newly created RN Unit Supervisor positions in the TICU.
7. On or before November 2, 2017, plaintiff confirmed to Yates-Williams that plaintiff was pregnant and thereafter informed Yates-Williams that plaintiff no longer wanted to apply for the RN Unit Supervisor position.
8. On November 3, 2017, Yates-Williams wrote an email to Kim Santos, Myers, Hasnain Photowala, Vassallo, and Hill that expressed Yates-Williams's disappointment that plaintiff, whom Yates-Williams already knew to be pregnant, was rescinding her application for the RN Unit Supervisor position and might even leave Inova. Yates-Williams's November 3, 2017 email stated that plaintiff is a "seasoned ICU/Trauma RN" and, if she left Inova, it would be a "tremendous loss" to the TICU team.
9. On November 8, 2017, plaintiff formally withdrew her RN Unit Supervisor application.
10. In late February and early March 2018, Yates-Williams, in consultation with Ms. Allen and Myers, promoted five Inova employees to the RN Unit Supervisor positions: Tari Kovacs, Sarah Geyer, Jamie Weaver (née Carver), Krista Borgquist, and Chris Miller. At the time of their selection, Yates-Williams was aware that Kovacs had just returned from FMLA leave, that Geyer and Borgquist were pregnant, that Weaver was trying to become pregnant, and that Miller's wife was pregnant.
11. On January 4, 2018, Yates-Williams spoke to plaintiff in person about a complaint that Yates-Williams understood had been filed against plaintiff by an employee in a separate unit. Yates-Williams asked plaintiff to respond to the complaint and to explain plaintiff's view of the incident by submitting a written Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation ("SBAR"). Plaintiff explained that she did not want to write an SBAR, preferring instead to sit down with the complaining nurse to discuss the incident.
12. On January 5, 2018 at 6:36 a.m., Yates-Williams texted plaintiff, "Please send me an email this morning outlining the expected timeframe (anticipated from xx thru xx) for the FMLA (childbirth/postpartum) you have planned as I'm working on supplemental staffing allocations today with our Executive team."
13. Plaintiff responded to Yates-Williams's text message, writing "If all things go as expected May 1-Aug 1." Yates-Williams asked plaintiff to send an email to Yates-Williams with the same information. In an email to Yates-Williams and Myers on January 5, 2018 at 9:20 a.m.,plaintiff wrote:
In reference to your text from this morning regarding my plans for future use of FMLA, I was under the impression that I did not have to notify INOVA until just before utilizing it. Please correct this impression if unfounded
14. On January 5, 2018 at 9:26 a.m., plaintiff sent an email to Yates-Williams and Myers, stating:
As per our conversation during change of shift 1/4 at 1900, I do not wish to answer the "safety always" lodged against me in written form. As I stated to you, I think there may have been a misunderstanding and I would like to clear it up with the other party/parties involved in person. I am more than willing to be flexible with my time and meet the other party/parties at their convenience.
15. Upon receiving plaintiff's emails, Yates-Williams and plaintiff spoke by phone. Yates-Williams sent a follow-up email on January 5, 2018 at 11:56 a.m. to plaintiff, Myers, Vivian Stancil, and Jacqueline Byrum. Stancil and Byrum are both HR representatives. Yates-Williams's email reiterated that the purpose of her request that plaintiff send by email the same information plaintiff had sent by text message regarding her "anticipated timeframe of planned absence from TICU related to pregnancy, delivery date, and FMLA," was to aid Yates-Williams in forecasting staffing needs during the upcoming months, and that in no way had Yates-Williams requested or indicated that plaintiff was expected to submit a request in advance for approval of FMLA leave through Cigna (the entity that manages, approves, and denies requests for FMLA leave for Inova employees) or HR. Yates-Williams further explained the approval process for acquiring supplemental staffing as well as the need to plan early given how many seasoned staff were expected to be out that spring for a variety of reasons, including educational commitments, pregnancy, and FMLA leave for surgery.
16. Due to plaintiff's refusal to write the SBAR (see Facts 11, 14) on January 4 and January 5, Yates-Williams also wrote in the follow-up email sent on January 5, 2018 at 11:56 a.m. of Yates-Williams's concern that plaintiff's level of collaboration and cooperation with basic requests had recently declined.
17. In her deposition, plaintiff testified that she felt that at this point—on January 4 or 5, 2018—her relationship with Yates-Williams had begun to deteriorate.
18. Neither Inova nor Cigna held plaintiff to the expected dates or the anticipated time frame for FMLA leave that she had been asked to provide on January 5, 2018, nor did Inova deny plaintiff any FMLA leave plaintiff requested or to which plaintiff was entitled.
19. According to plaintiff, her night shift from February 28 to March 1, 2018, was particularly difficult because plaintiff was tasked with orienting Chris Miller to the role of charge nurse. Plaintiff did not believe Miller to be qualified and therefore gave Miller few responsibilities that night.
20. On her way home from work on March 1, 2018, plaintiff called Stancil, an HR representative, to complain about Yates-Williams's criticism of plaintiff's staffing decisions. During this conversation, Stancil explained that she had been trying to reach plaintiff as part of Stancil's ongoing investigation of Yates-Williams prompted by complaints of other nurses. Stancil told plaintiff that Stancil could not speak further at that time because Stancil needed to attend a meeting, but plaintiff and Stancil arranged to speak again later that day.
21. Plaintiff recalls telling Stancil during their second conversation later on March 1, 2018 that Yates-Williams had insisted that plaintiff put her FMLA needs in writing on January 5, 2018 and then incorrectly interpreted plaintiff's hesitation as uncooperativeness. Plaintiff also provided examples, such as the March 1, 2018 shift, when plaintiff received "push-back"—or criticisms—about plaintiff's staffing decisions, complaints plaintiff had not received from Yates-Williams prior to plaintiff's refusal to put her...
To continue reading
Request your trial