Lax v. Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | A-0496-21 |
| Parties | MIRIAM LAX, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH, INC., and ANNAMARIE CUTRONEO, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Submitted November 28, 2022
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Ocean County, Docket No. L-0315-19.
Ferrara Law Group, PC, attorneys for appellants (Aaron L. Peskin, of counsel and on the briefs)
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, attorneys for respondent (Kristine J. Feher, on the brief).
Before Judges Currier and Bishop-Thompson.
Plaintiff Miriam Lax appeals from a September 24, 2021 order granting summary judgment to defendants Hackensack Meridian Health (HMH) and Annamarie Cutroneo. Based on our de novo review of the summary judgment record, we affirm.
We summarize the following facts from the record, viewing "the facts in the light most favorable to [plaintiff,] the non-moving party." Globe Motor Co. v Igdalev, 225 N.J. 469, 479 (2016) (citing R. 4:46-2(c)).
Plaintiff, an Orthodox Jew, began her employment with Jersey Shore University Medical Center (JSUMC), a hospital within the HMH healthcare system, as a secretary in the Case Management Department in 2009. In 2010, she was promoted to Specialty Patient Liaison in the Office of Patient Experience[1] and remained as the only liaison until 2018. Plaintiff was responsible for acting as a JSUMC liaison for patients and families, with a "special obligation to advocate for members of the Orthodox [Jewish] community." She testified she was "always on call" because she was routinely required to visit Orthodox Jewish patients throughout JSUMC. Additionally, plaintiff claimed her position was "never the sort of job where [she] was expected to remain at her desk throughout her shift."
In March 2018, the Office of Patient Experience was reorganized and restructured due to HMH's corporate merger. As a result, in July 2018, Cutroneo became Vice President of the Office of Patient Experience and Hospitality as well as plaintiff's supervisor. The restructuring objective was to standardize roles across HMH network hospitals. Consistent with that objective, job titles and responsibilities related to patient experience were consolidated into two primary positions: Experience Advisor and Experience Ambassador.[2] All team members in the Office of Patient Experience assisted patients of any religious or cultural background, including members of the Orthodox Jewish community.
After considering the roles and responsibilities within the department, defendants determined plaintiff's role of Specialty Patient Liaison was like that of the Experience Ambassador position. JSUMC crafted the title of Specialty Experience Advisor for plaintiff; she was the only employee to hold that particular title. At the same time, plaintiff "aggressively" sought a promotion and salary increase amid the reorganization.
On June 12, 2018, Katie Luciani, Human Resources Site Manager at JSUMC, provided plaintiff with a copy of the new job description for the Specialty Experience Advisor position for her consideration. In summary, the position provided service roles including, but not limited, to: the Ombudsman for patients and family members applying patient rights and ensuring compliance with regulatory, federal and state guidelines; acting as an expert for the cultural and religious needs for specialty communities; a liaison between members of the cultural and religious communities and JSUMC to increase visibility and foster cultural sensitivity; and as a role model, coach, and educator in all matters related to patient rights, service excellence, and patient satisfaction. The Specialty Experience Advisor supported the Experience Ambassador and Advisor as needed.
On June 15, 2018, plaintiff received an offer letter which identified the new title of Specialty Patient Experience Advisor and salary increase. Plaintiff's work hours were modified from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. After receiving the job description, she did not raise any concerns about her modified work hours or request any adjustment to her schedule.
During the next three months, plaintiff continued to exclusively focus her efforts on Orthodox Jewish patients. In September 2018, Cutroneo clarified HMH's expectations and restated plaintiff "had an obligation to provide service to everyone regardless of their faith base." She responded, "No problem."
Cutroneo testified during her deposition that she frequently observed plaintiff was not at her desk during work hours, did not have personal effects, such as her purse or jacket, in her desk area, and did not appear to be on site. Cutroneo's impression of plaintiff's frequent absences was confirmed by others in the Patient Experience department. Cutroneo also stated plaintiff never requested nor was granted remote work. Based on her job description, plaintiff was expected to be present during the designated work hours. Despite numerous requests to share her Outlook work calendar, plaintiff failed to share her schedule with Cutroneo or other team leaders.
On October 4 at approximately 8:10 a.m., Michael Rafter, Volunteer Services and the Switchboard manager, e-mailed all Patient Experience Team members notice of a 9:00 a.m. team "huddle"-meeting with all members. Plaintiff responded, "she would be there as soon as she could." Nonetheless, she failed to attend the huddle or notify her supervisors that she would not attend. Plaintiff arrived at work at 9:45 a.m., more than one hour after her start time and nearly one hour after the huddle.
Plaintiff explained to Rafter that she was late to the huddle because she attended another meeting in the hospital. Rafter notified Cutroneo of plaintiff's explanation regarding her absence from the huddle.[3] Cutroneo learned from a medical intensive care unit nurse leader that there was no meeting in the location within the hospital as represented by plaintiff.
The same day, Cutroneo requested a copy of plaintiff's identification badge swipes report from the JSUMC's Security team. Later that afternoon, Cutroneo received the badge swipe report for the period of August 1 through October 4, 2018. The report revealed that on the morning of October 4, plaintiff's first swipe was at an entry door to JSUMC at 9:39 a.m.
Additionally, the badge swipe report revealed that on every morning for the prior two months, except for October 4, plaintiff's first badge swipe of the day generally occurred at approximately 11:00 a.m. And the last swipe of the day was often between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m.
Following a review of plaintiff's badge swipe report, Cutroneo contacted Lisa Huisman, Team Member Labor Relations Manager, and Luciani to discuss the preliminary investigation regarding plaintiff. Cutroneo was advised by both Luciani and Huisman to address plaintiff's huddle absence and overall attendance.
The next morning, Cutroneo e-mailed plaintiff to meet at 8:30 a.m. Approximately five minutes before the scheduled meeting, plaintiff informed Cutroneo that she had a scheduling conflict and was unable to meet at the scheduled time. Plaintiff and Cutroneo met later that day. During the meeting, Cutroneo questioned plaintiff about her absence from the huddle on October 4 and why she was unable to meet earlier that morning. She claimed that she was in meetings in JSUMC on both mornings. She also explained that she had a "very fluid schedule" or sometimes she took calls in the morning from home and did not leave until after she "handled" those issues. Plaintiff admitted she never received authorization to work remotely.
Cutroneo informed plaintiff that her inability to report to work during her scheduled hours over the preceding months was a serious offense and that Cutroneo was informing Human Resources of the issue and she could be subject to disciplinary action. Plaintiff asked Cutroneo not to contact Human Resources and said she would "fix" the problem.
After meeting with plaintiff, Cutroneo reported her findings to Luciani and Huisman. They reviewed the badge swipe report, along with Cutroneo's findings, and determined that discipline was warranted.
On October 9, 2018, pursuant to HMH's Guidelines for Cooperation and Discipline (Guidelines),[4] plaintiff was disciplined for a Level II infraction for "[f]alsification of any [HMH] document or record including but not limited to time records, applications, patient information, and work-related documents" and "[a]ny act or conduct which is seriously detrimental to patient care or interferes with performance of work functions." A three-day suspension was imposed, and a disciplinary review hearing was scheduled.
The discipline hearing was held on October 11, 2018 with plaintiff, Luciani, Huisman, and Cutroneo in attendance. At the hearing, plaintiff acknowledged that her offer letter listed her on-site hours as 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. She also acknowledged that there were instances where she arrived to work late but claimed that because of Epstein-Barr syndrome, she had trouble getting to work on time. This was the first time plaintiff informed Cutroneo that she was diagnosed with Epstein-Barr. Following the disciplinary review hearing, plaintiff's suspension was upheld, and she was terminated for her gross misconduct.
Thereafter plaintiff filed an administrative appeal. In response, Donna Ciufo, Vice President/Chief Nursing Officer, met with p...
To continue reading
Request your trial