Nurse v. Windham Cmty. Mem'l Hosp.

• Decision Date: 28 December 2012
• Docket Number: 3:10-CV-00177 (CSH)
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: AMANDA NURSE, Plaintiff, v. WINDHAM COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant.

AMANDA NURSE, Plaintiff, v. WINDHAM COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant.

3:10-CV-00177 (CSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Dated: December 28, 2012

RULING ON DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:

I. Introduction

This is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff Amanda Nurse (hereafter "Plaintiff" or "Nurse") accuses her former employer, Windham Community Memorial Hospital (hereafter "Defendant" or the "Hospital") of violating both the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (hereafter the "CFEPA"), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 46a-51, et seq., and the Family and Medical Leave Act (hereafter the "FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant interfered with Plaintiff's right to take leave for her disability, depression, under the FMLA; that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for having exercised her right to take such a leave; that Defendant terminated her employment due to her disability, and that Defendant unlawfully failed to accommodate this disability.

Defendant denies all liability, and now moves for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint.

II. Background

The following facts, for the most part undisputed and culled from the pleadings and exhibits thereto, are relevant to the current motion.

Plaintiff was employed as a medical laboratory technician (hereafter "MLT") by Windham Community Memorial Hospital from 2004 through October of 2008. In October of 2008, Plaintiff was terminated. Plaintiff's termination followed a series of errors concerning the testing of specimen samples, including the levels of medications in patients' blood, as well as incidents in which she displayed behavior of a sexual nature in the workplace. One such lab testing mistake resulted in a patient's severe internal bleeding. Other mistakes nearly cost the Hospital lab its accreditation. Plaintiff also forged a coworker's signature on a Hospital timecard. Plaintiff states that throughout her employment, she suffered from chronic depression, and further, that at least some individuals at the Hospital were aware of her condition, including a Hospital employee named Kim Ninteau who worked as Plaintiff's laboratory partner early in Plaintiff's tenure at the Hospital, later supervised Plaintiff, and was integral in the decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment in October of 2008.

In late June of 2008, Plaintiff commenced a leave of absence (i.e., a continuous FMLA leave) due to her depression. Her health care provider, Dr. Michael Keenan, informed the Hospital's Human Resources department of the nature of this leave of absence in FMLA-related paperwork, in which he noted both that Plaintiff suffered from depression and that her condition had worsened to the point at which her job performance was affected. Dr. Keenan also noted in this paperwork that Plaintiff was at that time unable to perform any work, and that in addition to her continuous FMLAleave she might need to take intermittent FMLA leave for approximately three to four months due to her condition. Plaintiff remained out of work on her continuous FMLA leave of absence until early August of 2008, when Dr. Keenan approved her return to work without restrictions. Dr. Keenan made no mention of whether Plaintiff still required intermittent FMLA leave in the accompanying paperwork.

Shortly after her return to the Hospital, Plaintiff requested that she receive retraining in aspects of her job, which it appears she did not receive. Plaintiff claims that, had she been provided such retraining, she would have been able to perform adequately in her position subsequent to her return from continuous FMLA leave. Plaintiff also received a written warning for "excessive absenteeism" soon after her return from her FMLA leave of absence, as well as disciplinary warnings concerning her pre-continuous leave behavior.

In late September of 2008, less than two months after her return to full-time work, Plaintiff sought medical attention for "flu like" symptoms. Dr. Keenan provided Plaintiff with a note stating that she would be out of work for two days due to what he termed "Lyme Disease." Plaintiff provided this note to Defendant. Plaintiff subsequently provided Defendant with a second note in which Dr. Keenan indicated that Plaintiff would be unable to return to work until after a follow-up doctor's visit, which was scheduled for three days thereafter. Plaintiff returned to work on September 27, 2008, the day following her follow-up visit with Dr. Keenan.

On October 10, 2008, less than a month later, Plaintiff was terminated from her position at the Hospital for four stated overarching reasons: (1) attendance and punctuality; (2) poor quality of work and performance; (3) falsification of records and timecard; and (4) inappropriate conduct. [Doc. 21-4] at 97. Plaintiff was given at that time a detailed explanation, both in the form of twobullet-pointed lists of specific offenses and an undated letter, explaining the Hospital's reasons for her termination. Among the specific performance and behavioral issues that Defendant cited, all of which had occurred over the two years prior to Plaintiff's termination, were several poor quality and work performance issues (in which Plaintiff had made blood testing errors and for which Plaintiff had received Hospital-provided counseling); several examples of excessive absenteeism (for which Plaintiff was given warnings); inappropriate conduct (for which Plaintiff was given a verbal warning); and the falsification of a colleague's timecard (for which Plaintiff received a suspension). See id.

The formal discipline and termination of employment form that Defendant provided to Plaintiff also listed several "serious offenses" that had occurred in the month immediately prior to Plaintiff's termination:

• Continued absenteeism issues: 9/23-9/26/08

• Week of 9/28/08: Another occurrence of inappropriate conduct: Complaint received regarding comments that you made while at work that were extremely personal and sexual in nature.

• 9/30/08: You did not follow the procedure for checking pending logs resulting in a significant delay in patient care for a critical patient in [the Critical Care Unit]. When asked why you didn't check your pending log you replied "because I didn't."

• 10/1/08: While working in Hematology you were given samples to run for coagulation testing. You combined two separate specimens into one and were unable to perform the testing on the samples due to the error. These were Proficiency Testing (PT) samples and because of the error the Lab was unable to report the results resulting in unacceptable performance for this testing. Had these been patient samples, the error could have had serious detrimental effects to patient care. As these were Proficiency Testing samples, the error jeopardizes the ability of Windham Hospital Laboratory to perform these tests in the future. This is the 2nd occurrence of an error made by you on PT samples for the same tests. The first error occurred in 2007 and as a result the Lab was 'on probation' for these tests in 2007. When the supervisor discussed the seriousness of the problem with you, you showed noconcern for your error.

• 10/06/08: You were given an unknown sample as a competency test in Blood Bank by the supervisor (as a follow-up to ... 8/5/08 performance issues). You failed to add the patient's blood to the cartridge and came up with incorrect results. These mistakes could seriously harm or kill a patient.

Id. The accompanying letter Plaintiff received stated:

... You have had a number of performance and behavior issues over the past few years and these occurrences have increased in frequency and seriousness in the past year and include attendance, conduct, falsification of records, and performance. There has been another complaint about the personal and sexual nature of your conversations while at work. Such conversations are unprofessional and offensive.

In addition, and the most critical issue, is the number of serious performance problems that recently occurred. First was the Critical Care patient that took you over three hours to result because you did not follow procedures and check your pending logs. This delay in testing prompted a review by Quality Management.

In Hematology, you were given Proficiency Testing Samples to run. You made a mistake by pouring two of the samples together. Because of this error we were unable to report the results, which means we will fail this proficiency testing challenge and be on probation ... for the next two challenges. We could potentially lose our ability to perform this testing due to this error. In 2007 you made a similar error on the same tests and we were on probation then as well. Even more concerning is the fact that these could have been patient samples.

In Blood Bank you were given a competency test this week because of performance issues identified in August. You forgot to add the patient serum and came up with incorrect results. These mistakes could kill patients. In all three of these performance issues you showed little concern for your mistakes....

Id. at 98. Plaintiff has not disputed the facts as presented by Defendant in her termination forms.

Plaintiff brings four Counts against Defendant in her Complaint: Violation of the CFEPA for Disparate Treatment (Count One); Violation of the CFEPA for Failure to Accommodate (Count Two); Violation of the FMLA for Interference (Count Three); and Violation of the FMLA for Retaliation (Count Four). Plaintiff's demand for relief includes reinstatement to her position at the Hospital, monetary damages, and statutory attorneys' fees.III. Standard of Review

The standards for summary judgment are familiar. Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." F. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,...