Oby v. Baton Rouge Marriott

• Decision Date: 05 August 2004
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. 03-495-B-M1.,CIV.A. 03-495-B-M1.
• Citation: 329 F.Supp.2d 772
• Parties: Earnestine OBY v. BATON ROUGE MARRIOTT a/k/a Sodexho, Inc. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana

329 F.Supp.2d 772

Earnestine OBY v. BATON ROUGE MARRIOTT a/k/a Sodexho, Inc. et al.

No. CIV.A. 03-495-B-M1.

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

August 5, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Robert E. Randolph, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiff.

Bethany Brantley Johnson, Brandon M. Cordell, Herbert C. Ehrhardt, Lewis, Fisher, Henderson, Claxton & Mulroy, LLP, Jackson, MS, for Defendants.

RULING

POLOZOLA, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants, Columbia Sussex Corp., d/b/a Baton Rouge Marriott,¹ Janet Beck Schwartz, in her official capacity as General Manager of the Baton Rouge Marriott, and XYZ Insurance Company.² The motion is opposed.³ For reasons that follow, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.⁴

A. Factual and Procedural History

Plaintiff, Earnestine Oby filed this lawsuit against Baton Rouge Marriott, a/k/a Sodexho, Inc., Janet Beck Schwartz, in her official capacity as General Manager of the Baton Rouge Marriott, and XYZ Insurance Company⁵ alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").⁶ Thereafter, plaintiff amended her suit to name Columbia Sussex Corp., d/b/a Baton Rouge Marriott as the proper defendant instead of Baton Rouge Marriott, a/k/a Sodexho, Inc.⁷ Specifically, plaintiff alleges that Columbia Sussex violated her rights guaranteed by the FMLA. Plaintiff also alleges that Columbia Sussex retaliated against her for exercising her rights under the FMLA.

Columbia Sussex has filed this motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims under the FMLA. Columbia Sussex argues that there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to the FMLA interference and retaliation claims. Columbia Sussex also argues that the applicable law does not support plaintiff's claim for punitive damages and damages for emotional distress under the FMLA. Finally, Columbia Sussex contends that Janet Schwartz should be dismissed as a defendant from this case as a matter of law.

The Court believes it is important to set forth the factual background of this case to properly understand the Court's ruling. Columbia Sussex acquired the Baton Rouge Marriott in September 2000. Plaintiff began working at the hotel in 1976 and had worked at the Baton Rouge Marriott for 26 years until 2002. In 2002, plaintiff was the manager of all of the housekeepers at the Baton Rouge Marriott, or the Executive Housekeeper. Her annual salary was $41,000, and plaintiff was the third highest paid employee of the 111 total employees that then worked at the Baton Rouge Marriott. It is clear from the evidence that plaintiff's position was managerial in nature since plaintiff had supervisory authority over the other housekeepers and had the authority to approve requests for leave by her subordinates. It is also clear that plaintiff was a good employee and the defendant was satisfied with her work performance until the incident which led to this suit. It is also clear that there is no evidence in the record which suggests that defendant had developed a plan to terminate the plaintiff before the incident that forms the basis of this lawsuit. Finally, it is clear that plaintiff was caring for a person who was covered by the FMLA.

On Thursday, March 21, 2002, plaintiff advised Janet Schwartz, the General Manager of the Baton Rouge Marriott, that she needed to take a month off to care for her elderly parents. Plaintiff's father apparently suffered from Alzheimer's disease. Although there was no medical emergency, plaintiff testified that her sister was "burned out" from having to care for her parents, and needed plaintiff's help. Plaintiff originally wanted her leave to begin on Monday, March 25. Because plaintiff's second-in-command housekeeper, Shirley Chambers, was out as well, Schwartz requested and plaintiff agreed to delay the beginning date of her leave until Friday, March 29. Plaintiff complied with this request without objection.

On March 22, 2002, Schwartz had plaintiff complete all of the necessary FMLA paperwork requested by the human resources director for Columbia Sussex. On March 28, 2002, Schwartz delivered to plaintiff her paycheck and the following letter:

During your leave I would appreciate a call from you on April 12, 02 to let me know if you plan to return to work to the Baton Rouge Marriott. The Executive Housekeeper position is critical to the success of this hotel, and we need to have a plan in place and will be looking at possible candidates during your leave. As you know, this last minute request for a leave has placed the hotel in a very tenuous position. We do not wish to be placed in this position again, thus the need for an alternative plan. The hotel, the associates, and the owners all depend on income from this hotel, and we can only be successful with a clean facility. We sincerely hope you plan to return to the hotel, and wish you the best of luck with your parents. Thank you for your service.⁸

Plaintiff alleges that Schwartz lectured her when she handed plaintiff her check on March 28, 2002 and told her that if it was her mother, Schwartz would place her in a nursing home.⁹

On April 12, 2002, plaintiff returned to the Baton Rouge Marriott to pick up her paycheck. Although plaintiff met with Schwartz at this time, she did not tell Schwartz when she would be returning to work. On April 26, 2002, the day before plaintiff was expected to return to work at the Baton Rouge Marriott, plaintiff came to the hotel and advised Schwartz that she would not be coming back to work on the following day. During this discussion, plaintiff did not give Schwartz any definite information or indication about when she would be returning to work. Plaintiff did advise Schwartz that she was taking her father to the doctor on May 10, 2002 and would have more information after that date.

After obtaining approval from Columbia Sussex's home office, Schwartz granted plaintiff's request for additional leave time. At this point, plaintiff had already used four of her twelve weeks of FMLA leave and she only had eight weeks of FMLA leave remaining. Plaintiff also had accrued annual leave, but plaintiff's accrued annual leave ran concurrently with her FMLA leave under Columbia Sussex's FMLA policy. After granting plaintiff's FMLA request, Schwartz advised plaintiff that her FMLA leave would expire on June 21, 2002. However, on April 26, 2002, Schwartz also advised plaintiff that she needed to return to work by May 10, 2002.

In a letter dated April 29, 2002 Schwartz confirmed with the plaintiff the things they had discussed on April 26, 2002. Specifically, Schwartz advised plaintiff in writing that her FMLA entitlement would expire on June 21, 2002. Schwartz also advised plaintiff in this letter that she was considered a key employee¹⁰ under the FMLA, and accordingly, she would be denied reinstatement unless she returned to work by May 10, 2002. Schwartz advised plaintiff of the consequences of her key employee status as follows:

Because of your position and the expected duration of your leave, we will have to permanently replace you. Reinstating you at the end of the leave would therefore cause us substantial and grievous economic harm. For that reason, we expect to deny reinstatement to you if you should offer to return at the end of your FMLA leave in accordance with FMLA regulations. That means that you would lose the executive housekeeper position and the benefits that come along with it.

We must make a decision on a permanent replacement soon. If you can return to work by Friday May 10, we will not have to permanently replace you. Please let us know by Friday May 6, if you can return by May 10.¹¹

On May 7, 2002, a day after the deadline Schwartz had imposed in her April 29, 2002 letter, Schwartz called plaintiff and asked if she would be coming back to work. Plaintiff told Schwartz that she did not know when she would be returning to work, but it would not be on May 10, 2002. On May 9, 2002, Schwartz sent plaintiff a letter confirming their May 7, 2002 telephone conversation and confirmed that "[plaintiff] stated [she] would not be returning to work at the Baton Rouge Marriott."¹² However, plaintiff maintains that, at no time, either verbally or in writing, did she ever tell anyone at Columbia Sussex that she did not intend to return to her position at the Baton Rouge Marriott once her parents rehabilitated.¹³ In fact, plaintiff consistently argues that the May 10, 2002 date was not just pulled out of the air, but was, in fact, the date that her father was scheduled for a doctor's appointment which would hopefully give plaintiff more information about her father's condition and the amount of time she needed off.¹⁴ Indeed, plaintiff did not return to work at the Baton Rouge Marriott on May 10, 2002. She did return to the hotel on May 10, 2002 to get a paycheck. On June 3, 2002, plaintiff applied for unemployment benefits and stated on the application that she had been fired by Columbia Sussex on May 24, 2002.¹⁵

Columbia Sussex began advertising for applicants to fill the Executive Housekeeper position on approximately May 23, 2002. Although the exact date is unknown, Wilbert Roach was offered plaintiff's job at the same salary plaintiff had earned. Because Roach was required to give a two-week notice to his prior employer and relocate his family from New Orleans, he did not begin working at the Baton Rouge Marriott on June 24, 2002.

On June 21, 2002, the day that plaintiff's FMLA leave would have expired, plaintiff returned to the Baton Rouge Marriott and advised the hotel that she was looking for work. Plaintiff feels this date is pivotal because, as noted above, her replacement did not begin working at the Baton Rouge Marriott until June 24, 2002.¹⁶ Thus, plaintiff contends it would not have caused Columbia Sussex any injury to give her the Executive Housekeeper position on June 21, 2002....