Munoz v. InGenesis STGI Partners, LLC

• Decision Date: 22 April 2016
• Docket Number: Case No.: 14cv1547–MMA (BLM)
• Citation: 182 F.Supp.3d 1097
• Parties: Vanessa Munoz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. InGenesis STGI Partners, LLC; STG International, Inc.; and InGenesis, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California

182 F.Supp.3d 1097

Vanessa Munoz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

v.InGenesis STGI Partners, LLC; STG International, Inc.; and InGenesis, Inc., Defendants.

Case No.: 14cv1547–MMA (BLM)

United States District Court, S.D. California.

Signed April 22, 2016

Matthew Z. Crotty, Crotty and Son Law Firm PLLC, Spokane, WA, Robert Joseph Barton, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Spencer C. Skeen, Jesse C. Ferrantella, Timothy L. Johnson, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., San Diego, CA, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Hon. Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Vanessa Munoz alleges Defendants InGenesis, Inc. ("InGenesis"), InGenesis STGi Partners, LLC (the Joint Venture or "JV") and STG International, Inc. ("STGi") unlawfully: (1) required her to use Paid Time Off while on military leave (Count I); (2) terminated her because she took military leave (Count II); and (3) failed to reemploy her after she returned from military leave (Counts III and IV). Defendants move for summary judgment as to all of Plaintiff's claims. See Doc. Nos. 162, 163. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motions as to Count I, and DENIES Defendants' motions as to Counts II, III, and IV.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a U.S. Navy veteran. She served on active duty as a hospital corpsman from 2007 until 2009, when she was honorably discharged from active duty. Since then she has continued to serve in the U.S. Navy Reserves.

Defendant InGenesis is a human resources company headquartered in San Antonio Texas. Defendant STGi is a "workforce solutions company" with a West Coast regional office in San Diego, California. In June 2011, InGenesis and STGi formed InGenesis STGi Partners, LLC as a joint venture to pursue government contracts. InGenesis manages Operations for the JV including project and contract management, as well as communicating with government representatives regarding contracts. STGi manages Human Resources. The two companies operate independently of one another, other than their participation in the JV.

Before the JV was formed, Plaintiff was employed by STGi as a medical technician in Kearney Mesa pursuant to a contract between STGi and the Navy. On February 28, 2013, STGi's contract with the Navy expired, and a new contract between the Navy and the JV providing similar services was formed. Accordingly, Plaintiff was terminated as an employee of STGi and instead became an employee of the JV.

Under the Navy contract, the JV agreed to provide healthcare workers to Naval Medical Center San Diego and its branch clinics in San Diego County. The JV agreed to provide these services pursuant to Navy "task orders" stating the type of healthcare workers required, the place of performance, and the performance period. Because the contract involved the provision of medical personnel, consistent staffing was an essential goal of the contract. This is the only contract the JV has ever entered into with the Navy.

After Plaintiff began work at the JV, she took military leave to serve in the Navy Reserves between the following dates:

1. April 15, 2013—May 1, 2013;

2. May 6, 2013—June 4, 2013; and

3. September 23, 2013—September 27, 2013.

On September 4, 2013, Navy Contracting Officer Representative ("COR") Kristen Matella issued a Contract Discrepancy Report ("CDR") for Plaintiff based on her "excessive leave without pay." The CDR stated that as of July 13, 2013, Plaintiff had taken 170.5 hours of leave without pay, and quoted a provision of the Navy's contract with the JV, Section C.3.1.7, which set forth that "the contractor shall replace any HCW [healthcare worker] who has been on LWOP status for a total of 40 hours per task order."

On September 10, 2013, Cory Traywick, an InGenesis employee, responded to the CDR on behalf of the JV. In her response, Traywick informed the Navy that Plaintiff had been on military leave for a majority of the reported LWOP hours, and included copies of two of Plaintiff's orders for military leave. Traywick requested additional time to determine whether termination of Plaintiff pursuant to the contract would violate federal law, and noted that the Uniformed Services Employment Reemployment Act generally requires employers to reemploy or continue to employ service members returning from a period of uniform service. Traywick also requested that the Navy waive the contract requirement that obligated the JV to replace any healthcare worker who accumulated more than 40 hours of LWOP.

On September 18, 2013, Navy COR Matella replied to the JV and stated that "after a careful analysis of time sheets and leave trackers, it has been determined that notwithstanding the period in which [Plaintiff] was on military orders, she has accumulated over forty hours of LWOP." Accordingly, Matella invoked the contract language requiring replacement of any health care worker with over 40 hours of LWP, noting that Plaintiff's "inconsistent attendance has made her an unreliable member of a clinic team," and that the Navy "therefore requests that the contractor remove [Plaintiff] and provide the department with a replacement."

On September 26, 2013, the JV received a finalized CDR from Contracting Officer ("KO") Judy Draper and a request for a "detailed plan of action" with respect to Plaintiff by September 27, 2013. Accordingly, the JV informed the Navy that it planned to terminate Plaintiff. On September 30, 2013, the first day after Plaintiff returned to work from her military leave, two STGi employees working on behalf of the JV called Plaintiff and advised her that, effective immediately, she was being removed from the contract and terminated at the Navy's request due to the contract provision regarding excessive LWOP.

Plaintiff sues for discrimination under the Uniformed Services Employment Reemployment Act, 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. ("USERRA). She claims that requiring her to use PTO before using LWOP when taking her military leave was unlawful pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 4316, that her termination for taking military leave was unlawful pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 4311, and that that Defendants' failure to rehire her after military leave was unlawful pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 4312. Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, reinstatement, back pay, and liquidated damages under the USERRA. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for class certification on December 23, 2015.

LEGAL STANDARD

"A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense—or the part of each claim or defense—on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of establishing the basis of its motion and of identifying the portions of the declarations, pleadings, and discovery that demonstrate absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A fact is material if it could affect the outcome of the suit under applicable law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

The party opposing summary judgment cannot "rest upon the mere allegations or denials of [its] pleading but must instead produce evidence that sets forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Estate of Tucker v. Interscope Records, 515 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION

Defendant STGi adopts and joins the JV and InGenesis's motion for summary judgment and separate statement of undisputed material facts in substantial part. Any arguments specifically set forth by STGi are noted below.

I. Plaintiff's Failure to Appropriately Respond to Defendants' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts

Although Defendants properly submitted their Separate Statements of Undisputed Material Facts, Plaintiff failed to appropriately respond by stating whether each proposed fact was disputed, and if so, upon what grounds. Instead, Plaintiff's responses either: (1) reword Defendants' facts; (2) avoid responding to Defendants' facts by raising additional related facts; or (3) raise irrelevant facts. Plaintiff's failure to appropriately respond to Defendants' facts has made it difficult for Defendants, and for the Court, to determine what facts are disputed.

In their reply brief, The JV and InGenesis ask that the Court deem all of the facts identified in their Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e). Rule 56(e) provides that where a party fails to properly respond to the other party's assertion of fact, the court may: (1) give an opportunity to properly address the fact; (2) consider the fact undisputed; (3) grant summary judgment if the motion shows that the movant is entitled to it; or (4) issue any other appropriate order. Although Plaintiff's failure to properly respond to Defendants' Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts has burdened the Court, as indicated at the hearing on April 11, 2016, the Court finds that no remedial measures are necessary. Accordingly, Defendants' request is DENIED .

II. Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff has submitted a variety of evidentiary objections to evidence cited in Defendants' motions for summary judgment. See Doc. Nos. 167, 183. Upon due consideration, to the extent the Court considers such evidence, Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED . InGenesis and the JV have also filed objections to evidence in Plaintiff's opposition to its motion for summary...