Marquez v. Glendale Union High Sch. Dist.

• Decision Date: 09 October 2018
• Docket Number: No. CV-16-03351-PHX-JAT,CV-16-03351-PHX-JAT
• Parties: Louise Marquez, Plaintiff, v. Glendale Union High School District, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Arizona

Louise Marquez, Plaintiff,
v.
Glendale Union High School District, Defendant.

No. CV-16-03351-PHX-JAT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

October 9, 2018

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 67) and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 70). The Court now rules on these motions.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Glendale Union High School District (hereinafter "Defendant" or the "District") employed Plaintiff Louise Marquez (hereinafter "Plaintiff") as a computer programmer from October 2001 until Plaintiff's employment terminated on October 1, 2014. (Doc. 68 ¶¶ 1, 63; Doc. 69 ¶¶ 1-2). Plaintiff claims that her termination was illegally motivated by her age, disability, and statutorily protected activity. (Doc. 3 ¶¶ 1-2). Particularly, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. ("ADEA"), the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12111, et seq. ("ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 793, et seq. ("Rehabilitation Act"), and the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.

Page 2

("FMLA"). (Doc. 3 ¶¶ 1-2).¹ Defendant denies each of Plaintiff's claims, and raises the affirmative defense that Plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages. (Doc. 10 at 1-7).

On May 18, 2018, Defendant filed its pending Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 67), contending that Plaintiff failed to support each of her remaining claims and that no genuine dispute of material fact exists such that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Doc. 67 at 1). Plaintiff filed an Amended Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 83) on July 16, 2018,² to which Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 84) on July 27, 2018.³

Also on May 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed her pending Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 70) on her Eighth Cause of Action, which alleges interference with Plaintiff's rights under the FMLA, and on Defendant's affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages. (Doc. 70 at 1). Defendant filed its Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 80-1) on July 6, 2018,⁴ to which Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. 85) on July 27, 2018.⁵

Page 3

II. BACKGROUND

The following facts providing relevant background are drawn from the parties' statements of fact, briefs, and from parts of the record.

Plaintiff was an at-will employee for the District. (Doc. 77-1 at 149, 152). As a computer programmer, Plaintiff was responsible for writing, maintaining, and developing computer code relating to District student data, which she primarily accomplished throughout her tenure at the District by using a Linux-based programming language. (Doc. 68 ¶¶ 3-4; Doc. 77 ¶¶ 3-4). In 2007, the District purchased new student information and data management software, which used a different programming language known as Structured Query Language ("SQL"). (Doc 68 ¶¶ 5-6; Doc. 77 ¶¶ 5-6). That year, Plaintiff attended training on SQL Transact with all of the other programmers, (Doc. 77-1 at 26, Marquez Depo., 98: 10-24; Doc. 77-1 at 71, Beveridge Depo., 33: 16-22). In 2010, Ashley Hyman, another computer programmer, attended SQL Reporting training, which Plaintiff claims she was not provided the opportunity to attend. (Doc. 77 ¶ 93). Although Plaintiff requested external SQL Reporting training, she never received such training prior to her termination. (Doc. 77 ¶ 94; Doc. 77-1 at 135, ¶¶ 18-19). Nevertheless, Plaintiff had other training resources available to her, (Doc. 77-1 at 27, Marquez Depo, 101:5- 103:18), and frequently received instruction on SQL from Denis Alcock, another programmer, (Doc. 68 ¶ 25).

Over several years, the District gradually transitioned from the Linux-based software to the new SQL software. (Doc. 68 ¶ 7; Doc. 77 ¶ 7). By the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year, the transition from the Linux software to the SQL software was nearly complete. (Doc. 68 ¶ 26; Doc. 77-1 at 41, Dean Depo., 29: 1-21). However, Plaintiff asserts that there was still significant work that required use and knowledge of Linux at the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year. (Doc. 77 ¶ 13).

From 2005 until August 2014, Jordan Beveridge served as the Director of the IT department at the District. (Doc. 69 ¶ 3). Gail King was Plaintiff's immediate supervisor from 2007 until September 1, 2012. (Doc. 77 ¶¶ 83-84). Thereafter, Mr. Beveridge served

Page 4

as Plaintiff's supervisor until approximately July 2014, at which time Ms. Hyman was promoted and became Plaintiff's immediate supervisor. (Doc. 69 ¶ 5; Doc. 75 ¶ 5; Doc. 69-1 at 41, Hyman Depo., 9:1-10). Although Plaintiff did not have any difficulties with Ms. Hyman when they were both programmers, Plaintiff asserts that problems arose with Ms. Hyman once she became Plaintiff's supervisor. (Doc. 77-1 at 23, Marquez Depo., 82:11-16). For example, Plaintiff claims that Ms. Hyman told Plaintiff: "I would rather have 100 young ones than one of you," (Doc. 83 at 13), although Defendant contends Ms. Hyman did not make this comment, (Doc. 67 at 15).

On approximately September 1, 2014, Josh Dean replaced Mr. Beveridge as Director of the IT Department. (Doc. 69 ¶ 7). In anticipation of this transition, Mr. Beveridge and Mr. Dean began discussing the restructuring of the IT department in early August. (Doc. 68 ¶ 28; Doc. 77 ¶ 28). In accordance with the restructuring, the District approved new programmer job descriptions emphasizing the need for training and experience in SQL Reporting on September 7, 2014, and October 1, 2014. (Doc. 77-1 at 97-100).

With the exception of one performance evaluation from 2010 expressing that Plaintiff did not meet job performance standards in five of the seven evaluated categories, there is little evidence in the record discussing Plaintiff's performance prior to April 2014. See (Doc. 77-1 at 144-46). Plaintiff's April 30, 2014 performance evaluation was an improvement, as she received satisfactory ratings in five of the seven categories. (Doc. 77-1 at 140-42). Thereafter, however, Plaintiff encountered frequent scrutiny from her supervisor, Ms. Hyman, for allegedly: failing to meet deadlines, (Doc. 68 ¶ 21); resisting learning and using SQL, (Doc. 68 ¶¶ 14, 39); failing to actively communicate when she ran into project delays or needed help, (Doc. 68 ¶ 35); and for making mistakes including incorrectly uploading certain information on September 3, 2014 (Doc. 68 ¶ 36). Ms. Hyman met with Plaintiff to discuss these alleged performance issues on September 8, 2014.

On September 9, 2014, Plaintiff improperly coded new student attendance

Page 5

information, (Doc. 68 ¶ 40), although Plaintiff claims the error was a result of Ms. Hyman sending her the wrong instructions, (Doc. 77 ¶ 99). On September 12, 2014, Plaintiff met with Ms. Hyman and Human Resources Director Tom Hernandez to again discuss Plaintiff's alleged performance issues, including the requirement that Plaintiff use SQL, complete projects on time, and communicate with her coworkers regarding problems. (Doc. 68 ¶ 41; Doc. 77 ¶ 41). Following this meeting, Defendant issued a written reprimand to Plaintiff summarizing her performance issues on September 15, 2014. (Doc. 68 ¶ 43; Doc. 77 ¶ 43). Also on September 15, 2014, Mr. Hernandez provided Plaintiff with information on three open job positions within the District to which Plaintiff could transfer. (Doc. 68 ¶ 45; Doc. 77 ¶ 45). That same day, Plaintiff completed three transfer request forms for these open positions, writing "I do not have enough SQL Query and Report Builder experience to meet deadlines" as the reason for transfer, although Plaintiff claims she wrote this statement "under duress and at Mr. Hernandez's direction." (Doc. 68 ¶ 46; Doc. 77 ¶¶ 45-46).

On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff was not feeling well and sought emergency medical care. (Doc. 69 ¶ 8). Subsequently, Plaintiff emailed Ms. Hyman requesting sick leave for that day. (Doc. 68 ¶ 49; Doc. 68-2 at 77, Hyman Depo., 43:4-22; Doc. 77 ¶¶ 49-50). Plaintiff claims that she told Ms. Hyman that she had a brain tumor when she contacted Ms. Hyman on September 16, (Doc. 68-2 at 10-11, Marquez Depo., 110:22-111:15), but Ms. Hyman asserts that she had no idea that Plaintiff had a brain tumor until after Plaintiff no longer worked at the District, (Doc. 68-2 at 77-78, Hyman Depo., 43: 23-44:9). Nevertheless, the parties agree that Plaintiff never shared any information regarding a treatment plan or the work related impact of any diagnosis with Ms. Hyman. (Doc. 68 ¶ 51; Doc. 77 ¶ 51).

From September 16 through September 29, Plaintiff did not report to work and instead phoned or emailed in daily requests to use sick leave. (Doc. 68 ¶ 57; Doc. 77 ¶ 57). In total, Plaintiff used 11 days of sick leave in this period. (Doc. 69 ¶ 20). Plaintiff did not tell any other District employees—including Mr. Beveridge, Mr. Hernandez or

Page 6

Mr. Dean—that she was seeing a doctor for a possible brain tumor. (Doc. 77 ¶ 52; Doc. 68-2 at 10, Marquez Depo., 110:2-21).

On September 24, 2014, Ms. Hyman emailed Plaintiff requesting medical documentation for that day's absence and for any further absences in light of Plaintiff's use of her ten discretionary days for the year. (Doc. 69 ¶ 14; Doc. 69-3 at 10; Doc. 75 ¶ 14). Plaintiff then emailed Mr. Hernandez on September 25, 2014, asking what form of medical records she should provide in response to Ms. Hyman's request for documentation. (Doc. 69 ¶ 15; Doc. 69-3 at 10; Doc. 75 ¶ 15). The next day, Mr. Hernandez spoke to Plaintiff regarding the medical documentation needed. (Doc. 69 ¶ 16). On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff notified Defendant that she scheduled a doctor's appointment for October 6, 2014 specifically for the purpose of obtaining the medical documentation Defendant had requested, and also stated that when she visited the doctor on September 22 she had been unaware that she needed to obtain...