Olsen v. Capital Region Med. Ctr.
| Decision Date | 12 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 10-4221-CV-C-FJG |
| Parties | ANDREA OLSEN, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL REGION MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Currently pending before the Court is defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 30); plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. # 64) and defendants' Motion in Limine (Doc. # 65).
Plaintiff began working for Capital Region Medical Center ("CRMC") in March 1993 as a Certified Mammography Technologist in CRMC's Mammography Unit. According to the job description, a Mammography Staff Technologist is required to perform mammography examinations according to departmental protocols, adhere to recommended safety standards, operate the radiographic equipment and perform radiographic procedures of the breast by selecting proper positioning and technical factors for each patient and exam, tend to the physical and psychological needs of all patients, evaluate images for technical quality, obtaining and/or completing all necessary registration, billing and medical record paperwork, provide assistance to physicians during procedures, provide assistance with positioning patients, controlling tube/table movement and specimen collection. This job description was effective onMay 1, 2001 and was reviewed on June 1, 2005.
Plaintiff was initially diagnosed with epilepsy in the 1970's. Her epilepsy is idiopathic, meaning it has no known cause. Plaintiff's epilepsy causes her to have sudden, unpredictable seizures. During her seizures, plaintiff will stop what she is doing and fall down. All of her muscles contract at once, which sometimes causes her to shake. She is not aware of her surroundings during a seizure. Plaintiff's first seizure occurred at CRMC in 2004 in the mammography office while she was working on a schedule. On August 1, 2007, plaintiff suffered another seizure while in the back office of the mammography room. Plaintiff fell, hit her head on the counter, bit her tongue and cheek. Between June 2008 and August 2010, plaintiff suffered fourteen seizures at CRMC. During some of these seizures, plaintiff hit her head on counters, suffered cuts to her head and tongue, injured her face and on one occasion appeared to stop breathing. On March 5 and July 13, 2010, plaintiff suffered a seizure while she was working with patients. One of the patients was being positioned in the machine when plaintiff had the seizure. In a report to CRMC the patient stated that plaintiff had just begun the compression portion of the mammogram when she fell to the floor. One of the patients complained to CRMC and stated that it was a patient safety issue and that she felt that she needed to report it so that (Defendants' Exhibit 24).
Beginning in August 2008, following the seizures where plaintiff lost consciousness, injured herself and had her breathing interrupted, CRMC placed plaintiff on paid administrative leave until September 25, 2008 so that she could obtain anopinion from a neurologist about the reasons for the increase in her seizures. After plaintiff submitted a letter from a neurologist on September 8, 2008, she returned to work.
In 2008, the Mammography unit was in a crisis situation because four technologists, including plaintiff had some uncertainty about the days that they were available to work or were on leave. An employee in the X-Ray unit, Lauren Carender, expressed an interest in working in the Mammography Unit. In order to help alleviate the staffing situation, CRMC hired Ms. Carender as a fifth technologist in August 2008, so that she could begin training and obtain the necessary experience. Ms. Carender became a full-time technologist in 2009.
From June 2008 to February 2010, CRMC made a number of accommodations in an effort to alleviate conditions which might be potential triggers for plaintiff's seizures. The accommodations included: removing and remediating mold in plaintiff's work areas, investigating the ingredients of products used to clean the mammography area and machines, having other technicians perform mammograms for patients who were wearing heavy perfume, installing anti-glare filters on lights in plaintiff's work room, adjusting the computers so that text would not scroll, having employees cover view boxes with x-ray film when not in use in order to reduce the brightness of the light, permitting plaintiff to wear sunglasses, educating fellow employees on epilepsy and how to treat persons suffering from a seizure.
On November 18, 2008, following a seizure where plaintiff hit her head and required three staples, CRMC decided that the risk of harm to plaintiff and others prevented her from performing the duties of a mammographer and decided to work withher to find an alternative position. On November 19, 2008, CRMC placed plaintiff on paid administrative leave and advised that they would help plaintiff find an open position that did not involve patient care. When plaintiff's paid administrative leave expired on December 19, 2008, she was then placed on FMLA leave beginning on December 22, 2008. Plaintiff returned to work as a mammography technologist in March 2009, following CRMC's changes to her work environment. However, plaintiff's seizures continued. She had a seizure on April 20, 2009, May 18, 2009, October 15, 2009, November 20, 2009, March 5, 2010, June 21, 2010 and July 13, 2010. In July 2010, CRMC determined that the accommodations were not working and plaintiff's seizures posed a risk to herself and the patients and she could no longer work as a mammographer. On July 14, 2010, defendant Robert Mazur, Vice-President of Human Resources, notified plaintiff of CRMC's decision to place her on administrative leave and to attempt to find an alternative position for her. On July 29, 2010, Mr. Mazur responded to plaintiff's request that CRMC create a new position for her as a Breast Health Coordinator. He explained that the position required an individual who was a registered nurse. He also explained that this position was not created because the patient volume did not justify creation of the position. But, Mr. Mazur did offer plaintiff a position as a temporary file clerk in the Imagining Department. He explained that this was not a permanent solution, but rather was an opportunity for plaintiff to continue her employment, while they considered more permanent job opportunities. Plaintiff accepted the position and worked there until January 14, 2011, when the position expired. Plaintiff suffered two more seizures while working in the temporary position, one on August 4, 2010 and another on August 17, 2010. Following the expiration of thetemporary file clerk position, CRMC placed plaintiff on unpaid administrative leave with full benefits. From January 2011 through April 2011, CRMC continued to provide plaintiff with a current list of open positions at the hospital. On May 17, 2011, after being informed by plaintiff and her counsel that her seizures were under control as a result of a change in medications and that she had regained her driver's license, CRMC offered to reinstate plaintiff at her prior rate of pay and with full seniority and benefits. Plaintiff rejected this offer and on May 31, 2011, CRMC terminated plaintiff's employment. CRMC did not fill plaintiff's position after her discharge in May 2011. The Mammography department had only four technologists and their hours were reduced after plaintiff's discharge.
Plaintiff filed her first Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on August 10, 2009, alleging disability and age discrimination. Plaintiff claims that CRMC and defendant Mazur violated the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA") by discriminating against her based on her disability and age and retaliating against her for filing her first charge of discrimination. In connection with her age discrimination claim plaintiff alleges that she was replaced by a younger employee, Ms. Carender and that plaintiff's supervisor, Carrie Fischer, left a note on April 20, 2009, inquiring if plaintiff desired to work full-time or part-time because she was "nearing retirement age."
A moving party is entitled to summary judgment on a claim only if there is a showing that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). If the moving party meets this requirement, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986), the Court emphasized that the party opposing summary judgment "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts" in order to establish a genuine issue of fact sufficient to warrant trial. In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, giving that party the benefit of all inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the evidence. Matsushia, 475 U.S. 574, 588; Tyler v. Harper, 744 F.2d 653, 655 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1057 (1985).
As there is no direct evidence of discrimination, the Court will proceed to analyze plaintiff's claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial