Mills v. Temple Univ.

Decision Date03 April 2012
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 10–4324.
PartiesShelly MILLS, Plaintiff, v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Drake P. Bearden, Jr., Gregg L. Zeff, Zeff Law Firm LLC, Mt. Laurel, NJ, for Plaintiff.

Lisa Marie Scidurlo, King of Prussia, PA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM

YOHN, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Shelly Mills, brings this action against Temple University (Temple), alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq., and violations of the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mills, a secretary, suffered a back injury at work that interfered with her ability to complete tasks involving lifting and filing. Mills claims that Temple discriminated against her in violation of the ADA by refusing to accommodate her disability and by instead requiring her to take unpaid FMLA leave. She also alleges that Temple retaliated against her for requesting a disability accommodation by placing her on unpaid leave. Although Mills had previously been granted intermittent FMLA leave to attend doctors' appointments for her back injury, Temple requested an additional healthcare certification, which Mills claims constitutes unlawful interference under the FMLA. Currently before me is Temple's motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons set forth below, I will grant in part and deny in part Temple's motion.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History1

Mills began working for Temple University Hospital in 1998 as a patient interviewer. (Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Supp. of Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Def.'s Facts”) ¶ 1; Pl.'s Resp. to Def.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Counterstatement of Facts (“Pl.'s Facts”) ¶ 93.) 2 In 2007, she accepted a bargaining-unit position as a secretary in Temple's Cardiology Department. (Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 2, 4; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 4, 94.) Mills's job duties included supporting nursing staff with clerical duties, making appointments, producing letters, pulling charts, and filing. (Pl.'s Facts ¶ 6.) She spent approximately one hour a day filing. ( Id. ¶ 96.)

Mills's employment was relatively uneventful—she received positive job reviews and worked well with her co-workers—until July 23, 2008. (Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 8–9; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 97.) While typing at her desk that day, Mills was struck in the back by a co-worker and flung forward.3 (Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 9–10; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 98.) She did not report the incident to her supervisor, human resources, or her union that day. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 11; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 11.) However, she began experiencing severe pain within days of the incident. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 15; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 15, 99.) By the end of the following week, Mills reported the incident; a workers' compensation incident report was completed and Mills was referred to a physician in Temple's Occupational Health Unit. (Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 15–16; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 15–16.)

Mills was initially treated by Dr. Evelyn Balogun in Temple's Occupational Health Unit. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 17; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 101.) Dr. Balogun examined Mills and ran several tests including an X-ray and a bone scan. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 17; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 17.) Although Dr. Balogun was unable to diagnose Mills during her initial visit she gave her a medicated topical cream for pain and continued to see her approximately once a week until December 2008. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 18; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 101.) After each appointment, Dr. Balogun released Mills to return to work without imposing any restrictions on her activities. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 19; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 19.) Ultimately, Dr. Balogun referred Mills to Dr. Ray Moyer, an orthopedist, before releasing her from workers' compensation medical care altogether. (Def.'s Facts at 3 n. 3; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 18.)

Dr. Moyer prescribed Naprosyn4 to Mills for pain management and recommendedphysical therapy three times a week. (Def.'s Facts at 3 n. 3; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 102.) Dr. Moyer referred Mills to Dr. Stanley Michaels, also an orthopedist, who in turn referred her to Dr. Tayron. (Pl.'s Facts ¶ 103, 105.) Mills saw Dr. Tayron only once around February 2009 and received a “pain management shot” during her appointment. (Pl.'s Facts ¶ 105.)

During this time when Mills was being treated by various physicians, she continued to work without any doctor-imposed, work-related restrictions. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 19; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 19.) Nevertheless, Mills experienced pain in her back while working and had difficulty lifting and filing patient charts. (Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 19, 106.) Mills's supervisor, Anthony Morlino, the senior administrator for the Cardiology Department, was aware that Mills was in pain, as Mills discussed the matter with him on four or five separate occasions between July 2008 and August 2009. ( Id. ¶¶ 89, 107.) And between early 2009 and mid–2009, Mills asked Morlino for assistance with filing on several occasions. ( Id. ¶ 108.) In reality, student interns and permanent Temple staff took over filing for Mills toward the end of 2008, ( id. ¶¶ 19, 106), a fact that Mills shared with Maureen Murphy, her direct supervisor ( id. ¶ 109).

Outside of work, Mills continued to engage in daily activities such as driving, caring for her herself and her daughter, and shopping. (Resp. Ex. A, Dep. of Shelly Mills (March 16, 2011) (“Mills Dep.”) at 67:13–16; 70:18–24.) However, Mills struggled with these daily activities, which she found exhausting. ( Id. at 67:13–24.) Mills enrolled in a ballet class in the fall of 2008, but found that she could no longer exercise to the extent she had previously been accustomed. ( Id. at 69:9–24; 70:6–15.)

After being released from workers' compensation medical care in December 2008, Mills contacted the Human Resources Department about how to pursue a workers' compensation claim. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 22; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 22.) Ultimately, her claim was unsuccessful. (Def.'s Facts at 4 n. 4.) Because Mills was using sick time in order to attend her doctors' appointments, Morlino suggested that she apply for FMLA leave to protect these periodic absences. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 23; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 23.) Mills contacted Thomas Johnston, the director of workers' compensation and absence management at Temple, regarding the availability of and process of applying for FMLA leave. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 24; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 24.) Johnston provided Mills with information regarding her eligibility for intermittent FMLA leave and did not discourage her from taking FMLA leave. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 26; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 26.)

At Temple, when an employee believes that he or she is eligible for FMLA leave, he or she contacts the Benefits Department. (Pl.'s Facts ¶ 117.) Upon receiving a request for information pertaining to the FMLA, the Benefits Department provides the employee with a “leave request” form, a “release of medical information” form, and a healthcare provider certification (the “Certification”). (Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 120–21.) After the completed forms have been returned, Johnston reviews them to ensure that each has been properly filled out. (Resp. Ex. K, Dep. of Thomas F. Johnston (April 14, 2011) (“Johnston Dep.”) at 35:10–18.)

Mills received the FMLA paperwork in early 2009 and filed her first application for intermittent leave around February 24, 2009. (Def.'s Facts ¶¶ 30–31; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 30–33, at 16 n. 2.) Dr. Michaels, Mills's healthcare provider at the time, completed the Certification. (Pl.'s Facts ¶ 125.) On the certification, in response to the question that asks, “Is the employee unable to perform any of his/her job functions due to the condition?” he answered “yes.” ( Id. ¶ 126.) Mills's application was conditionally denied on March 5, 2009, because Dr. Michaels had not properly completed the Certification. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 3 1; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 31, 129.) Mills contacted human resources concerning the denial and was instructed to have Dr. Michaels clarify the information he provided on the Certification, particularly his diagnosis. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 32; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 32.) Because Dr. Michaels had only seen Mills once, he declined to provide a diagnosis or complete the Certification. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 33; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 33.) As a result, Mills's first request for intermittent FMLA leave was denied on March 18, 2009. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 34; Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 34, 130.)

After being discharged from Dr. Michael's care, Mills began treating with Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a pain-management specialist, around April 2009. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 37; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 37.) On April 16, 2009, Dr. Gupta noted that Mills had disc “desiccation with disc bulging eccentric at C2–3 and to [the] right at C5–6.” (Resp. Ex. F at 1.) Dr. Gupta treated Mills for approximately six months, and she received bi-monthly epidural injections for her back pain. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 37; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 37.)

Mills applied a second time for intermittent FMLA leave in May 2009. (Resp. Ex. B at 1.) Dr. Gupta completed the Certification for her application, in which he noted that Mills had a thoracic MRI that was positive for disc degeneration and a cervical MRI that was positive for disc degeneration and bulging. ( Id. at 4.) He further described Mills as suffering from Kyphosis. 5 ( Id.) Dr. Gupta also answered “yes” to the question, “Is the employee unable to perform any of his/her job functions due to the condition?” ( Id.) In response to the next question, “identify what job functions the employee is unable to perform,” Dr. Gupta wrote, “having trouble filing, etc.” ( Id.)

Although Mills's second application for intermittent FMLA leave was approved, the parties offer different accounts as to what occurred between Mills's filing and Temple's approval. (Def.'s Facts ¶ 39; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 39.) According to Johnston,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Gardner v. SEPTA
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • October 17, 2019
    ...major life activit[y],’ has ‘a record of such an impairment,’ or is ‘regarded as having such an impairment.’ " Mills v. Temple Univ. , 869 F. Supp. 2d 609, 620 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A), (B), (C) ). In order to determine whether a physical or mental impairment limits ......
  • Molina-Parrales v. Shared Hosp. Servs. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee
    • January 17, 2014
    ...to thirty pound lifting restriction with the need to alternate sitting and standing may prove a disability); Mills v. Temple Univ., 869 F.Supp.2d 609, 621–22 (E.D.Pa.2012) (three pound lifting restriction sufficient to create a material factual dispute as to disability and survive summary j......
  • Reyer v. Saint Francis Country House
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • March 20, 2017
    ...failure to perform essential functions of the job is a legitimate nonretaliatory reason for dismissal); Mills v. Temple Univ. , 869 F.Supp.2d 609, 628 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (same).As such, the burden shifts back to Reyer to demonstrate pretext. Defendants contend that Reyer has failed to offer an......
  • Anselmo v. City of Phila.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • January 29, 2021
    ...request, and they discussed alternative accommodations if the requested accommodation was too burdensome." Mills v. Temple Univ., 869 F. Supp. 2d 609, 624 (E.D. Pa. 2012); see also Stadtmiller v. UPMC Health Plan, Inc., 491 F. App'x 334 (3d Cir. 2012) (affirming grant of summary judgment wh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter § 3-2 § 1630.2. Definitions
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Maslanka's Texas Field Guide to Employment Law Title Chapter 3 The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
    • Invalid date
    ...will make up an increasing number of claims, and the weight restriction can be minimal. Very minimal. • Mills v. Temple Univ., 869 F. Supp. 2d 609 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (finding a three-pound lifting restriction sufficient to establish genuine issue of fact as to disability and to survive summary......
  • Chapter § 1-58 29 CFR § 825.308. Recertifications for Leave Taken Because of an Employee's Own Serious Health Condition or the Serious Health Condition of a Family Member
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Maslanka's Texas Field Guide to Employment Law Title Chapter 1 The Family and Medical Leave Act
    • Invalid date
    ...for employee to receive FMLA leave where certification provided a minimum period of incapacity of six weeks). • Mills v. Temple Univ., 869 F. Supp. 2d 609 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (adhering to Hurt, court denies summary judgment, noting that a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT