Mirocha v. Palos Cmty. Hosp.

• Decision Date: 08 March 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 11–cv–4542
• Citation: 240 F.Supp.3d 822
• Parties: Joseph MIROCHA, Plaintiff, v. PALOS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and Ken Lash, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

240 F.Supp.3d 822

Joseph MIROCHA, Plaintiff,

v.PALOS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL and Ken Lash, Defendants.

Case No. 11–cv–4542

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed March 8, 2017

Joseph Patrick Berglund, Kenneth Michael Mastny, Berglund Armstrong & Mastny, P.C., Oak Brook, IL, G. Ryan Liska, Office of Fund Counsel, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Jeremy J. Glenn, Alexandra Grace Wright, Cozen O'Connor, Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge

Plaintiff Joseph Mirocha brings this action against Defendants Palos Community Hospital and Ken Lash alleging age discrimination, retaliation, defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and failure to pay Plaintiff for unused sick leave. Currently before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment [146] and [167]. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment [146] and denies Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment [167] as to Plaintiff's federal claims in Counts I and II. In view of that disposition of the federal claims, Plaintiff's remaining state law claims in Count III through Count X are dismissed without prejudice. The Court will enter a final judgment and close the case.

I. Background

The following facts are drawn primarily from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements, [148], [168], and [173].¹ This case arises from the termination of Plaintiff Joseph Mirocha from Defendant Palos Community Hospital ("PCH") in April 2011. PCH hired Plaintiff as the Electrical Department Supervisor on October 6, 2003, when Plaintiff was fifty-one years old. [148, at ¶ 27.] Plaintiff reported to Defendant Ken Lash, Manager of Clinical Engineering, who in turn reported to Marty Baron, Vice President of Facilities. [Id. at ¶ 28.] Plaintiff was terminated on April 8, 2011, when he was fifty-nine years old. [See id. at ¶ 50.] Defendants allege that Plaintiff was terminated from PCH because of his failure to fulfill his job duties relating to the electrical database. [Id. at ¶ 32.] Plaintiff alleges that he was fired because of his age. [168, at ¶ 42.]

A. PCH's Electrical Equipment

PCH is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Facilities ("Joint Commission"). [148, at ¶ 10.] To maintain accreditation, PCH's Safety Steering Committee and its subcommittees ensure that PCH is compliant with the Joint Commission's standards by developing and executing management plans for various areas, including utility systems and medical equipment. [Id. at ¶ 11.] PCH employees are expected to conduct preventative maintenance on the electrical equipment and to document that maintenance.² [Id. at ¶ 12.]

In 2010, PCH began a six-year expansion project, which involved the construction of a new building and required the addition of several hundred new devices and pieces of health care equipment, all of which needed to be entered into an electrical database. [Id. at ¶¶ 17, 26.] Prior to January 2011, PCH tracked information in two separate databases: the electrical equipment database and the electrical panel database. [Id. , Exhibit C (Baron Deposition), at 22:10–23:20.] The electrical equipment database tracked information about equipment that was subject to preventative maintenance. [Id. at 22:10–20.] The electrical panel database tracked information about circuit panels, such as "where they are fed from, what areas they served, if they had additional space in them for growth and if they had breakers that were unused [.]" [Id. at 22:15–23:3.] When the two separate databases were created, they had different functions and different requirements. [Id. at 79:2–8.] The electrical panel database was not originally conceived to schedule preventative maintenance. [Id. ; see also id. at 22:15–23:3.]

Around January 27, 2011, the electrical panel database was merged into the electrical equipment database. [Id. at ¶ 25.]

B. Maintaining the Databases

Defendants allege that as the Electrical Supervisor, Plaintiff was responsible for maintaining electrical safety throughout the hospital, including maintaining the electrical equipment database, performing incoming inspections, writing preventative maintenance procedures and ensuring that those procedures were performed, working with the safety officer to ensure that fire alarm preventative maintenance and repairs were conducted, and performing any other tasks requested by Baron and work delegated by Defendant Lash. [Id. at ¶¶ 30, 34.] On September 29, 2008, Defendant Lash emailed Plaintiff two Excel spreadsheets to assist Plaintiff in ensuring, and to facilitate their future discussions about, the accuracy of the electrical equipment database. [Id. at ¶ 37.] In November 2008, Defendant Lash questioned Plaintiff about the completeness of the electrical equipment database, including the accuracy of the preventative maintenance tasks listed. Plaintiff agreed to make improvements in these areas. [Id. at ¶ 38.] During Plaintiff's September 30, 2010 Management Performance Appraisal, Defendant Lash again directed Plaintiff to improve the accuracy of the electrical equipment database. [Id. at ¶ 39.] Specifically, Plaintiff's September 30, 2010 Management Performance Appraisal states as follows:

Major Job Function 1. Responsible for electrical work performed throughout the hospital, grounds and satellite facilities.

Comments : Under [Plaintiff's] direction, the daily electrical needs of the hospital and satellite facilities have been satisfactorily met. [Plaintiff] needs to improve in the promptness of entering incoming inspections of new equipment into the electrical database and the completeness of the required fields for equipment entries including serial numbers, model numbers, and acquisition dates. [Plaintiff] also needs to make sure that all equipment histories are accurate and include work by outside vendors.

* * *

Work Goals

1. To verify the accuracy of the electrical equipment database and service histories, including entering incoming inspections promptly and completely.

[Id. , Exhibit A5, (September 30, 2010 Management Performance Appraisal).]

Plaintiff disagrees that he was responsible for maintaining the electrical equipment database. Rather, Plaintiff contends that the Hospital Equipment Management Program policy requires Defendant Lash, as Manager of the Clinical Engineering, to document each piece of equipment into the database. Plaintiff asserts that PCH's policy states:

The department managers shall be responsible for entering all the necessary information for new equipment when it is put into service, this includes information such as PCH number, model number, serial number, manufacturer, user department and any other information which is necessary to maintain proper records. The department managers will also be responsible for setting up a comprehensive preventive maintenance schedule for each piece of equipment.

[168, ¶ 21; see also 168, Exhibit 6.] Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiff's job description did not explicitly include the responsibility of maintaining the equipment database but submit that Defendant Lash, as Plaintiff's supervisor, delegated to Plaintiff the responsibility of maintaining the database. [173, at ¶ 8; 148, at ¶ 35.] Plaintiff concedes that as his supervisor, Defendant Lash delegated work to him and was responsible for ensuring that he performed the work assigned to him. [148, at ¶ 34; 168, at ¶ 34.] Plaintiff also admits that Defendant Lash delegated to Plaintiff the responsibility of maintaining the electrical equipment database. [168, at ¶ 35.] However, on February 3 or 4, 2011, Plaintiff told Lash that he did not think it was his job to enter the data and update the database. [Id. ]

Additionally, Plaintiff claims that Defendant Lash was responsible for updating the other database—the electrical panel database—but failed to do so. [168, ¶ 24(m).] Plaintiff contends that the electrical panel database lacked PCH-required fields—such as fields for model number, serial number, and manufacturer—from 1995 until January 2011, when the panel database was merged into the equipment database. However, the record evidence demonstrates that in February 2011, Plaintiff acknowledged that he had been working on both the equipment database and the panel database. [168, Exhibit 24.]

C. Plaintiff's January 28, 2011 Deadline (Thirty Day Deadline)

On December 30, 2010, Defendant Lash told Plaintiff that he was still not satisfied with Plaintiff's progress on the electrical equipment database and gave him thirty days to bring the database into full compliance. [148, at ¶ 40; 148, Exhibit B1 (December 30, 2010 File Memo).] In January 2011, Baron told Defendant Lash that the electrical equipment database was deficient and directed Defendant Lash to make sure that it was up to date. [148, at ¶ 41.]

Plaintiff alleges that in December 2010, the electrical equipment database "was in good shape." [168, ¶ 40.] Yet, he also contends that it was difficult to meet this thirty day deadline. Plaintiff alleges that in or about 2010, the Electrical Department facilitated the largest electrical infrastructure cut-over in the history of PCH, "which required many months of man hours to be devoted and taken away from the electricians' day to day responsibilities." [168, at ¶ 10.] According to Plaintiff, the thirty day deadline "virtually caused his department to be shut down in order to meet this deadline," [168, at ¶ 9], and the demands made upon him concerning the electrical database were "designed to cause him to quit and/or designed to set him up for involuntary termination." [Id. ]

Around January 27, 2011, the electrical panel database was merged into the electrical equipment database. [148, at ¶ 25.] Baron testified that he believed that the electrical panel database was updated on a regular basis. [148, Exhibit C, at 25:7–9.] Plaintiff contends that the panel database was not up to date,...