Mahil v. Option Care Enters.
| Decision Date | 15 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:20-cv-01559-BEN-MDD |
| Parties | HARJIT MAHIL, an individual, Plaintiff, v. OPTION CARE ENTERPRISES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER: (1) DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED; AND (2) THE PARTIES' MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL ARE GRANTED [ECF NOS. 36, 37, 45]
Plaintiff Harjit Mahil (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Option Care Enterprises, Inc. (“Defendant”) for various violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”) California's Family Rights Act (“CFRA”), and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). ECF No. 1. Before the Court is: (1) Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 36; (2) Defendant's Motion to File Documents Under Seal, ECF No. 37; and (3) Plaintiff's Motion to File Documents Under Seal, ECF No. 45.
The Motions were submitted on the papers without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and Rule 78(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 58. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable law, the Court (1) DENIES Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and (2) GRANTS both parties' Motions to File Documents Under Seal.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a clinical pharmacist and was terminated in January 2020. Plaintiff now alleges several claims related to disability discrimination, retaliation, interference with medical leave, and wrongful termination.
On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder by Dr. Kaylan Graham. Ex. 82 to Declaration of Jenna Rangel, ECF No. 44-3 (“Rangel Decl.”) at 2;[1] Deposition of Dr. Kaylan Graham, 46-13 (“Graham Depo.”) at 5. The medical records read that Plaintiff was feeling anxious, overwhelmed, had trouble sleeping, and was constantly thinking/worrying about her job as a pharmacy intern and how everything was going to get done. Ex. 82 to Rangel Decl. at 2.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt clinical pharmacist from March 27, 2017 through January 10, 2020. Declaration of Lawrence Jefferson, ECF No. 36-4 (“Jefferson Decl.”) at 3, ¶ 8; Declaration of Harjit Mahil, ECF No. 44-1 (“Mahil Decl.”) at 2, ¶ 2. Defendant provides in-home and alternate site infusion services nationwide. Motion at 10; ECF No. 44 (“Oppo.”) at 7. Ruth Zau, who became pharmacy manager in February 2018, began supervising Plaintiff near the end of 2017. Deposition of Ruth Zau, ECF No. 44-5 (“Zau Depo.”) at 121-22, 129-30. Vicky Lo also worked as a clinical pharmacist, and Vincent Sanque and Shirley Fernandez worked as pharmacy technicians. Id. at 130. Other employees included Kenny Williamson, who worked in the warehouse and intake specialists, Lory Zinggeler and Jason Quarles. Id.
During the applicable time frame, Janette Elardo served as Defendant's Senior Director of Operations, and Lawrence Jefferson served as Defendant's Human Resources Business Partner. Deposition of Janette Elardo, ECF No. 44-4 (“Elardo Depo.”) at 4; Jefferson Decl. at 2, ¶ 4.
Plaintiff's 2018 Mid-Year Performance Review, [2] executed by Zau during October 2018, appears positive. See Ex. 11 to Rangel Decl. at 13-15; Zau Depo. at 126. Zau mentioned Plaintiff's good phone etiquette, efforts with patient documentation, and her ability to follow policies and procedures, laws, and USP standards. Ex. 11 to Rangel Decl. at 13-14. Zau also noted her appreciation that Plaintiff was not afraid to speak her mind regarding the work environment and morale. Id. at 15.
Plaintiff's 2018 Annual Performance Review was entered on February 21, 2019, and Zau reiterates the same positive comments as those noted in Plaintiff's 2018 MidYear Review. See Ex. 12 to Rangel Decl. at 17-20; Zau Depo. at 163-64. Zau also noted Plaintiff's strong communication skills, her ability to put patients at ease, and that she had seen Plaintiff “grow so much in the last 6 months and . . . [was] very pleased with [her] progress.” Ex. 12 to Rangel Decl. at 17.
In late May 2019, there was an incident between Plaintiff and pharmacy technician, Vincent Sanque. Ex. 42 to Rangel Decl. at 104. Plaintiff alleged Sanque yelled[3] at her when she asked him for help, and Sanque claimed Plaintiff just sat at her desk while he did her job. Ex. 42 to Rangel Decl. at 104; Ex. 77 to Rangel Decl. at 5; Ex. 55 to Jefferson Decl. at 28. Both Plaintiff and Sanque relayed their version of the event (among other things) to Zau and in emails to Elardo. Ex. 77 to Rangel Decl. at 5; Ex. 55 to Jefferson Decl. at 28-29; Elardo Depo. at 29-33. Zau told Elardo she could see both sides, noting that while Plaintiff can be a little rough around the edges, Sanque takes no initiative, and that there had been other complaints about him. Ex. 77 to Rangel Decl. at 2; Elardo Depo. at 33-34. Zau stated Plaintiff asked Sanque for help more than others, but it was not wrong for her to do so. Ex. 77 to Rangel Decl. at 2. Zau stated she perceived Sanque's behavior as insubordination. Id.
During a staff meeting in September or October 2019, Plaintiff “complained that employees were overworked, unable to take breaks due to the understaffing, mentioned a recent class action against Rite Aid for missed breaks, and complained about her own stress and anxiety relating to these issues.” ECF No. 36-9 at 9; see also Ex. 16 to Elardo Decl. at 4 (). There is also a chat conversation between Plaintiff and Lori Zinggeler, where Plaintiff reports that she had been there all day with no break. Ex. 86 to Mahil Decl. at 5. When Plaintiff said she “swear[s] no one cares about you here, ” Zinggeler responded “I kmow [sic]!!” Id.
On October 22, 2019, [4] Zau completed a Verbal Disciplinary Action form regarding two alleged incidents that occurred on October 16 and 18, 2019. Ex. 14 to Rangel Decl. at 22; Zau Depo. at 174. The report states on October 16, 2019, Plaintiff created a delivery ticket but failed to list the necessary tubing. Ex. 14 to Rangel Decl. at 22. A few days later, Zau had to have a stat driver deliver the tubing to the patient. Id. On October 18, 2019, Zau wrote that she asked Plaintiff to come in early “for scheduled repairs, ” and Plaintiff allegedly failed to check one delivery ticket and mislabeled another. Id. When Zau questioned Plaintiff about the situation, Zau alleges Plaintiff yelled loudly, Id.
Two patient infusions were allegedly delayed because of Plaintiff's error. Id. On October 23, 2019, [5] Zau gave Plaintiff a verbal warning regarding the events. Ex. 16 to Rangel Decl. at 33; Zau Depo. at 178. Zau testified that all three incidents played a role in her writing up Plaintiff's Disciplinary Action, but the “biggest thing” was that Plaintiff yelled in the workplace. Zau Depo. at 176.
Zau stated that after giving Plaintiff a verbal warning, Plaintiff asked for some time to calm down “and then asked to take the rest of the day off to see her MD to get anxiety meds.” Ex. 16 to Rangel Decl. at 28. Zau observed Plaintiff crying before she left. Zau Depo. at 183. Plaintiff visited Dr. Graham that afternoon. Ex. 82 to Rangel Decl. at 19. The medical records state Plaintiff suffered a panic attack at work, and that she reported trouble breathing, palpitations, and feeling overwhelmed. Id. Plaintiff told Dr. Graham that in addition to her pharmacy work, she was forced to do her warehouse manager's job, because he was out of town. Id. Plaintiff explained “[t]he day did not go well, deliveries did not get out on time, ” and Plaintiff felt that the verbal warning she received for what happened was unfair. Id.
Zau asked Plaintiff to provide a medical note, which Plaintiff did. Id.; Ex. 42 to Rangel Decl. at 119. Plaintiff also informed Zau that her doctor “instructed her to take a few days off . . . .” Id.; Ex. 16 to Rangel Decl. at 28. On October 24, 2019, Zau emailed the note to Jefferson and Elardo. Ex. 16 to Rangel Decl. at 28. Zau expressed her belief that because Plaintiff was the only pharmacist scheduled for the next day, she was retaliating against Zau “by getting a MD note to cover today and tomorrow and choosing not to come in” knowing this would create huge problems. Id. Zau also complained that Plaintiff: (1) did not take direction well; (2) had yelled at Zau twice before; (3) had the most penalty pay from late/missed lunches; (4) sometimes complained about having to work overtime; and (5) “expressed anger at the company for giving her ‘too much work to be done in 7 hrs . . . .'” Id. Zau further noted Plaintiff's prior comments about the Rite Aid and Kaiser lawsuits, alleging Plaintiff was truly bringing down the morale of the team. Id. Jefferson responded that Zau could not consider an employee seeing a physician and being relieved of work duties as retaliation and asked why performance issues had not been raised in the past. Id. at 27. Zau replied that she had been too nice in the past, and the first time Plaintiff yelled at her was a year ago. Id. Zau stated she would document all incidents going forward, but that not all incidents could “be written up, such as complaining about the company during team meetings.” Id.
On October 25, 2019, Plaintiff sent Zau a text message stating she would not be coming into work that day and attached another medical note from Dr. Graham. Ex. 42 to Rangel Decl. at 119. Zau sent the medical note to Jefferson and Elardo and told...
To continue reading
Request your trial