Martinez v. Aspen Dental Mgmt.
| Decision Date | 22 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:20-cv-545-JES-MRM |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
| Parties | LAUREN MARTINEZ, Plaintiff, v. ASPEN DENTAL MANAGEMENT, INC. and R. DUSTIN DIXON DMD HOLDINGS, PLLC, a Florida limited liability company, Defendants. |
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law In Support Thereof (Doc. #31) filed on October 25, 2021. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #37) on November 22, 2021, to which Defendants filed a Reply (Doc #40) on December 6, 2021.
Plaintiff Lauren Martinez (Plaintiff or Martinez) filed a four-count Amended Complaint against her former employer Aspen Dental Management, Inc. (Aspen Dental) and Dustin Dixon DMD Holdings, PLLC (Dixon) (collectively the Defendants). (Doc #26.) Defendants seek summary judgment on all the claims in the Amended Complaint. (Doc. #31.)
The material relevant facts are as follows: Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from October 2018 until her termination on June 2, 2020. (Doc. #26, ¶¶ 7 20-21; Doc. #37-3, p. 16.)[2]Plaintiff worked as an assistant office manager for Dixon's dental practice (a/k/a Aspen Dental) located in Cape Coral, Florida. (Doc. #32-2, ¶¶ 2-3; Doc. #37-3, p. 16.) As an assistant office manager, Plaintiff assisted manager Dale Pinsonnault (Pinsonnault) with organization of staff members, consulted with patients about treatment plans, and handled financing and insurance issues. (Doc. #32-2, ¶¶ 3, 9-10; Doc. #37-3, p. 16.) When Pinsonnault was absent from the office, Plaintiff was the acting office manager. (Doc. #32-2, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff reported to Pinsonnault, who in turn directly reported to regional manager Rachel Roberts (Roberts). (Doc. #32-2, ¶ 4; Doc. #32-3, ¶¶ 6-7.)
During her employment at Aspen Dental, Plaintiff made negative comments about Pinsonnault, and at times, agreed with other employees who complained and talked negatively about Pinsonnault. (Doc. #37-3, pp. 48-49.) Pinsonnault confronted Plaintiff about her comments and informed her that it was creating a negative work environment. (Doc. #32-2, ¶¶ 11-12.) Thereafter, the working relationships between Pinsonnault, Plaintiff, and other staff members became strained. (Id.)
In December 2019, Plaintiff informed Defendants that she was pregnant and intended to take eight weeks of leave upon the birth of her child. (Doc. #37-3, pp. 19-20.) Defendants approved Plaintiff's leave request. (Id., p. 20.)
On January 29, 2020, Pinsonnault received an email from Aspen Dental's Cash Management Department, informing him that the end-of-day deposit for January 23, 2020 had never been deposited. (Doc. #32-2, ¶ 14.) Pinsonnault began an investigation into the missing deposit, during which he realized Plaintiff was the acting office manager on January 23rd and was responsible for ensuring the deposit was completed. (Id., ¶ 15.) Despite speaking with other employees, Pinsonnault could not locate the missing deposit. (Id., ¶ 16.)
On January 30, 2020, Roberts visited Aspen Dental to assist with Pinsonnault's investigation. (Id., ¶ 17; Doc. #32-3, ¶ 15.) When Roberts spoke with Plaintiff about the missing deposit, Plaintiff did not want to speak with the police and was “antagonistic.” (Doc. #32-3, ¶¶ 16-17.) Following the investigation, Roberts considered terminating Plaintiff at the behest of Dr. Niera. (Id., ¶ 18.) Roberts scheduled a staff meeting to remind the staff of their job responsibilities and discuss best practices moving forward. (Id., ¶ 19.) Roberts found Plaintiff to be disengaged and not receptive to feedback during the staff meeting; Roberts intended on speaking with Plaintiff after the meeting. (Id.) Plaintiff, however, prematurely left the meeting due to experiencing labor pains. (Id.) On February 8, 2020, three days later, Plaintiff delivered her child and commenced her eight weeks of leave. (Doc. #37-1, ¶ 3; Doc. #37-3, p. 7.)
While Plaintiff was on maternity leave, the COVID-19 pandemic arose. (Doc. #32-2, ¶ 21.) The Aspen Dental clinic was only permitted to be open for emergency dental procedures and all employees were furloughed except for a limited skeleton crew, which was expected to last until mid-May. (Id., ¶¶ 21, 23.) On April 1, 2020, Plaintiff was cleared by her doctor to return to work following her maternity leave, but the Aspen Dental office did not reopen until April 27, 2020. (Id., ¶¶ 22, 24.) Upon reopening, Plaintiff returned to Aspen Dental and continued working as assistant office manager without disruption until May 26, 2020. (Id., ¶ 25; Doc. #37-3, p. 23.) Plaintiff's teenage daughter, who was participating in online/virtual high school classes at home, cared for Plaintiff's two younger children while Plaintiff was working. (Doc. #32-1, pp. 23-24.)
On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff informed Pinsonnault that she would not be able to come to work because her daughter was “sick” and was unable to watch her two younger children.[3] (Doc. #37-2, p. 1.)
On the following day, Plaintiff again informed Pinsonnault that she would not be at work because her daughter was still “pretty sick” and her son was now “sick.” (Doc. #37-2, p. 1.) Pinsonnault approved Plaintiff's time off for each day. (Doc. #32-1, p. 26.)
On the evening of May 27, 2020, Plaintiff texted Pinsonnault the following:
Hi Dale! I apologize but I'm going to have to miss tomorrow also. Emilia is still sick so she can't take care of Luka and Braxton, but honestly we need to discuss me working from home. She's [Emilia] not capable of taking care of them and really she doesn't need to be left alone all day herself. I don't know what protocol is for that but I really can't leave a child to watch an infant and a toddler[.] I don't even know if that's legal[.]
(Doc. #37-2, p. 4.) Pinsonnault replied that he spoke with Roberts, who confirmed that Aspen Dental did not have any available positions at the time that would permit Plaintiff to work from home.[4] (Id., p. 5.) Plaintiff responded, as follows:
It's fine. I figured you'd check with her [Roberts] first. I had thought Rachel [Roberts] said on the zoom call that there were employees working from home but I guess not. It's not a matter of not being able to afford it, it's the daycare and school being closed. Well I'm not quitting my job but I can't leave them home alone anymore so I guess I just won't be getting paid?
(Id., p. 6.) Pinsonnault suggested daycare as a possibility, but Plaintiff responded that “Braxton's [daycare] is at capacity and Luka in [sic] on waiting list.” (Id., p. 7.) Pinsonnault informed Plaintiff that Roberts advised him to reach out to Human Resources to determine what could be done about the situation. (Id., p. 8.)
After hearing from Human Resources, Pinsonnault informed Plaintiff that (Id.) Plaintiff responded by asking are you telling me I do not have a job, or can I return to work on Monday? (Id., p. 10.)
Plaintiff again text Pinsonnault on May 29, 2020, stating:
Ok so after re-reading our communication over the last few days I don't need any clarification, but I think you do. I didn't come to work bc [sic] my children were sick so I had to call out and I'm pretty sure that doesn't constitute being let go or that I vacated my position. I've communicated with you this entire time and you were okay with me staying home for that. All I said is I wanted to discuss with you about working from home bc [sic] I thought that was an option[.] I never once said that's what I was definitely doing or not coming back to work. I'm not sure what you communicated to Hr or anyone else for that matter but I never vacated anything. I simply asked a question. I guess you should let your entire staff go if people can't call out.
(Id., pp. 11-12.) Pinsonnault responded that he only asked Human Resources about Plaintiff remaining off from work for the time being due to her “day care situation.” (Id., p. 12.) Pinsonnault informed Plaintiff that she could return to work on the upcoming Monday, June 1, 2020, or “can opt for a 30 day leave of absence but it does not guarantee your job will be there after.” (Id., p. 13.) Plaintiff communicated with Pinsonnault that she believed the situation “should have been handled more professionally.” (Id., p. 14.) Pinsonnault, in turn, told Plaintiff that he was only trying to help her - he reminded Plaintiff that he was her boss and she should not question his professionalism or intentions. (Id., p. 16.)
On June 1, 2020, Plaintiff did not come to work at Aspen Dental, nor did she inform Pinsonnault that she would not be present; Plaintiff, however, sent an email to Defendant's HR Department seeking clarity about what had transpired in her text messages with Pinsonnault. (Doc. #32-2, ¶ 35; Doc. #37-2, pp. 18-19.) Roberts contacted Plaintiff via text when she learned Plaintiff had not return to work, and asked Plaintiff if she was able to return to work tomorrow on June 2, 2020, to which Plaintiff replied, “yes I can return tomorrow.” (Doc. #32-3, ¶ 30.)
On June 2, 2020, Roberts met with Dr. Niera and Pinsonnault to discuss Plaintiff's unprofessional conduct that occurred prior to her pregnancy leave, including the investigation into the missing deposit, and Plaintiff's interaction with Pinsonnault via text, and determined that Roberts should speak with Plaintiff when she arrived at work. (Doc. #32-3, ¶¶ 34-36.) Upon meeting with Pla...
To continue reading
Request your trial