Lalack v. Oregon
| Decision Date | 30 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | 3:11-CV-01285-BR |
| Parties | TAMMY LALACK, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON, OREGON YOUTH AUTHORITY, KENNETH JESKE, and FARIBORZ PAKSERESHT, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Oregon |
(REDACTED)
DANIEL J. SNYDER
CARL LEE POST
ERIN C. McCOOL
Law Offices of Daniel Snyder
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Attorney General
Assistant Attorneys General
Oregon Department of Justice
Attorneys for Defendants
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion (#21) to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion (#80) for Leave to File Reply. For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Leave and GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment.
The following facts are viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and undisputed unless otherwise noted.
Plaintiff Tammy Lalack began working as a part-time office assistant at the Oregon Youth Authority's (OYA) Hillcrest facility in March 1999 as part of an injured-workers program.1
On October 1, 2000, Plaintiff began working as a full-time Office Specialist 1 (OS1).
The record reflects Defendants noted professionalism issues with Plaintiff as early as 2003. In a March 15, 2005, Written Reprimand by Hillcrest Support Services Coordinator Robert Skinner, which was signed by Plaintiff, Skinner noted the following chronology:2
REDACTED
Decl. of Marc Abrams, Ex. A at 121-22. Skinner noted Plaintiff "continued to demonstrate deficient customer service skills and . . . continued to misuse the agency's e-mail system . . . [and] violated the confidentiality of a youth in [OYA] custody." Id. at 122. Specifically, Skinner noted:
REDACTED
Id. at 122-23. Skinner directed Plaintiff to improve her customer-service skills immediately, to cease using OYA email for personal business, to limit access to JJIS to uses required by her job, and to adhere to OYA confidentiality requirements. Skinner advised Plaintiff that failure to do those things "may result in further discipline, up to and including, dismissal from state service." Id. at 123.
At some point after June 6, 2006, Patricia Taylor replaced Robert Skinner as Plaintiff's supervisor.
On June 1, 2007, Taylor issued Plaintiff a Written Reprimand in which Taylor noted the following:3
REDACTED
Abrams Decl., Ex. A at 124-25. Taylor noted management concluded at the end of the investigational interview that Plaintiff had engaged in unprofessional and inappropriate conduct on at least seven occasions between April 21, 2007, and May 14, 2007. Taylor advised Plaintiff that her inappropriate and unprofessional conduct "will no longer be tolerated." Taylor further advised Plaintiff that "any future incidences wherein [Plaintiff] . . . conduct[s] [herself] in an unprofessional manner, provide[s] deficient customer service, exercise[s] bad judgment, or offend[s] guests, visitors, youth or youth family members, or other staff, will result in further discipline, up to and including dismissal from state service." Id. at 127.
On November 8, 2007, Taylor provided Plaintiff with her Performance Appraisal for the period October 2006 - October 2007. Taylor noted Plaintiff "accomplished the secretarial and supportfunctions of her duties in a satisfactory manner," but the "accomplishment of her reception duties is not consistently satisfactory due primarily to [Plaintiff's] challenges in the area of getting along with others." Abrams Decl., Ex. A at 128.
On December 20, 2007, Plaintiff met with a number of individuals including Taylor, Smith, and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Representative Dan Murray to discuss the results of a neuropsychological evaluation of Plaintiff. A number of suggestions were made to accommodate Plaintiff's various disabilities, and it was noted Plaintiff already had been removed from reception duties to accommodate her limitations.
On December 19, 2008, Plaintiff received a Letter of Warning with Expectations from Hillcrest Program Director Rick Hess related to a verbal altercation that Plaintiff had with a coworker. Hess noted Plaintiff "used a loud, angry and accusatory tone of voice which was overheard by other coworkers in the vicinity." Defs.' Court Requested Submission, Ex. 1 at 1. Hess directed Plaintiff not to be disrespectful to others in the workplace; to be responsible and accountable for her performance; to manage her behavior, comments, tone, and attitude; to foster positive and professional interactions with staff at all times; not to engage in "threatening postures"; and to exhibit good judgment "in determining how someone outside or inside the facility would view [her] actions." Id. at 2. Hess advisedPlaintiff that "further incidences of inappropriate and unprofessional conduct with others in the workplace may lead to disciplinary action." Id.
On April 13, 2009, Taylor provided Plaintiff with her Performance Appraisal for the period October 2007 - October 2008. Taylor noted Plaintiff's reception duties "were eliminated from her responsibilities, and her position was restructured to include primary job duties of photocopying, filing, processing mail, as well as other assigned work." Snyder Decl., Ex. 45 at 1. Taylor noted Plaintiff "takes her work seriously and wants it to be done well," Plaintiff "received thanks from the living unit Treatment Managers and Treatment Services Manager for her support," and Plaintiff showed initiative by tracking data on Youth Observation Logs. Taylor, however, noted Plaintiff needed to improve her ability to prioritize her workload, to "consistently maintain[] satisfactory performance, and [to] maintain[] harmonious working relationships." Id.
On July 21, 2009, Plaintiff received a Letter of Reprimand from Hillcrest Superintendent Troy Gregg in which he noted Plaintiff had a negative interaction with another OYA employee on May 11, 2009, in front of a youth's visiting family members in the lobby of the OYA Administration Building. The interaction was overheard by several staff members and resulted in "a negative interaction between [Plaintiff] and two coworkers whichcreated an unprofessional environment in front of a family of a youth." Snyder Decl., Ex. 48 at 2. Gregg advised Plaintiff that her behavior was "outside of the policy requirements addressed previously in your Letter of Warning with Expectations." Gregg advised Plaintiff that "failure to correct [her] behavior and/or any recurrence of the same or similar misconduct with coworkers and in front of families of youth offenders may subject [her] to more severe disciplinary action up to and including dismissal from state service." Id.
On October 21, 2009, Plaintiff received a one-step salary reduction for two months. OYA Human Resources Manager Belinda Teague described the "charges causing [that] action" as follows:4
REDACTED
Abrams Decl., Ex. A at 132. Teague noted ten specific instances in August and September 2009 of Plaintiff failing to stay on task with the duties of her job, interjecting herself into the work of other employees, or looking for things to criticize her coworkers. Teague concluded:5
REDACTED
On December 3, 2009, Plaintiff met with OYA Professional Standards Office (PSO) Manager Kenneth Jeske, Facilities Director Joan Palmateer, and SEIU Vice President Joe King to discuss Plaintiff's possible transfer from Hillcrest to the PSO. At that meeting Plaintiff reiterated she suffers from a number of physical and mental-health issues.
Plaintiff testifies in her Declaration that at some point between December 15 and December 21, 2009, she sent an email6 to Gregg in which she advised him that she "had witnessed [OYA] Group Life Coordinator 2 Deborah VanCamp, using hostile intimidation tactics towards a youth until the youth reacted and acted out, causing the youth to be taken to the 'Quiet Room.'" Lalack Decl. at ¶ 112.
On December 21, 2012, Plaintiff transferred to the PSO as an Office Specialist I.
On January 7, 2010, Jeske allowed Plaintiff to have flex time to arrive at 9:00 a.m. instead of 8:00 a.m. and to end at 5:30 p.m. rather than 5:00 p.m. to accommodate her various health issues. Plaintiff testified at deposition that she was aware the flex time meant only that her start and ending times weredifferent from other employees and did not mean she could vary her arrival and departure times from the designated hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Plaintiff was on leave on various days in January 2010 under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Specifically, Plaintiff was out from January 19, 2010, through February 1, 2010, on FMLA leave for surgery. Plaintiff was also off from work on sick or medical leave on other days in February and March 2010.
On April 14, 2010, Taylor provided Plaintiff with her Performance Appraisal for the period October 1, 2008, through December 21, 2009. Taylor rated Plaintiff as "Meets Expectations" in knowledge and application of principles, techniques, procedures, and requirements specific to her position and in the care and maintenance of state resources, tools, materials, and equipment. Taylor rated Plaintiff as "Needs Improvement" in nine other areas including work efficiency and productivity, effective use of time, attendance, and compliance with agency procedures and policies. Plaintiff received "Unsatisfactory" in two categories: (1) ability to work "in harmony" with coworkers, managers, program customers, and stakeholders and (2) compliance with state and agency policies and procedures. Taylor rated Plaintiff's overall performance as "Needs Improvement."
On April 22, 2010, Jeske sent Plaintiff an email in which henoted Plaintiff had been "chatting" on the telephone for over 20 minutes on nonwork-related issues and requested Plaintiff to remain focused on work. Jeske advised he would have told Plaintiff in person, but Plaintiff's "niece is in there and it would be rude." Snyder Decl.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial