Pang v. Adult Day Health, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 July 2022 |
| Docket Number | DLB-19-2283 |
| Parties | EPHRAIM PANG, Plaintiff, v. ADULT DAY HEALTH, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
EPHRAIM PANG, Plaintiff,
v.
ADULT DAY HEALTH, INC., Defendant.
No. DLB-19-2283
United States District Court, D. Maryland
July 21, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DEBORAH L. BOARDMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ephraim Pang filed suit against his former employer, Adult Day Health, Inc. (“ADH”). ADH operates a senior community center in Gaithersburg, Maryland that caters to ethnic Chinese seniors. Pang alleges he worked many overtime hours each week at this facility without compensation, that ADH terminated his employment after he requested leave to care for his injured wife, and that ADH communicated the news of his termination to a group of seniors in a defamatory manner. He asserts violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3401 et seq., and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 3-501 et seq.; a violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq.; and a state law defamation claim.
ADH moves for summary judgment. ECF 61. Several days before ADH filed its summary judgment motion, Pang-who was previously represented by counsel but now proceeds pro se- moved for an indefinite stay on account of his serious medical conditions. ECF 60. ADH opposed the stay, ECF 63, and Pang filed a letter replying to ADH's opposition and briefly opposing the summary judgment motion, ECF 66. ADH regarded the letter as an opposition and filed a reply. ECF 69. The Court denied Pang's motion for an indefinite stay and provided him an opportunity
to file additional briefing opposing ADH's summary judgment motion. ECF 70. Pang filed another letter opposing summary judgment. ECF 73. The Court interprets his letter to also request reconsideration of the Court's decision denying a stay. ADH then filed a reply to Pang's latest opposition letter, as permitted by the Court's order. ECF 76.
No hearing is necessary. Loc. R. 105.6. For the following reasons, Pang's motion for reconsideration is denied, and ADH's motion for summary judgment is granted.
I. Background
ADH operates senior community centers in Maryland that provide “adult day care” services.[1] ADH's facilities cater to ethnic communities-Korean, Chinese, Russian, and Indian- and many employ bilingual staff. Among its facilities, ADH operates Rainbow Adult Day Health Centers (“Rainbow”), which serves ethnic Chinese clients.
On February 27, 2017, Pang accepted an offer for employment at Rainbow as a marketing representative, earning $120,000 per year. ECF 61-2, at 4-5 (60:3 - 61:2). His direct supervisor was Jeff Wright. Id. at 50. Pang is fluent in Mandarin, and his work as a marketing representative involved identifying and recruiting potential clients. Id. at 5-7 (61:3 - 63:2). Specifically, he called or visited locations like hospitals and senior apartments, introduced himself and Rainbow to seniors, and explained how certain programs could help meet their and their families' needs. Id. His formal job description listed the following responsibilities:
• Develop[s] business development strategies for individual facility markets
• Participates in business development and strategy planning sessions
• Works with facility operations to create and implement specialized marketing plans to support core growth opportunities
• Assists in maintaining company branding/image standards
• Facilitates re-branding activities for acquisitions
• Performs other duties from time to time as assigned directly by business development leadership
Id. at 55. He would make independent decisions about his work based on the needs of clients and their families. Id. at 11 (70:13-17). He did not have any supervisory responsibilities. Id. at 10 (66:16-19). In this role, Pang worked approximately 40 hours each week.[2] He would “try to go the extra mile every time” to please the seniors and ensure Rainbow's success in a competitive market. Id. at 10 (66:3-15).
In July 2017, Pang accepted a program director position at Rainbow for the same salary. Id. at 12 (71:13-19); id. at 59 (indicating annual salary of $120,000). Pang previously had expressed dissatisfaction with his salary and a desire to take on more responsibility. Id. at 12 (71:1-12). As program director, Pang spent time supervising staff, overseeing purchases, submitting payroll information, attending conferences, and looking at “all aspects of the operation of the center to try to figure out” clients' needs and potential improvements in areas like food and transportation. Id. at 21, 29-30 (83:1-21, 91:2 - 92:15). A job posting for the program director position identifies the position's duties to include managing day to day operations; ensuring quality of services and compliance with regulatory requirements; and managing, hiring, training, and scheduling staff. Id. at 63. Specifically, the listed job responsibilities are:
• Develop short and long-term goals for Adult Day Health Program
• Directing and supervising all aspects of the program
• Personnel Management.
• Ensure compliance with the standards established by the Department of Health and Human Services and other regulatory and accrediting agencies.
• Overseeing program safety and emergency evacuation plans.
• Seek and use clinical and administrative guidance as needed.
• Fiscal Administration of the program.
• Establish collaborative relationships to ensure necessary support services are available to members and their families.
• Development and implementation of the program's marketing plan.
• Other tasks as assigned by the leadership team.
Id. at 64.[3] As program director, Pang worked at least 40 hours each week, and he “typically” worked more than 60. Id. at 14 (76:12-17).
Regarding his supervisory duties, Pang testified he delegated tasks and provided training to staff. Id. at 33-35 (95:5 - 97:2). He also evaluated staff by pointing out when something was not being done properly or could be done in a better way. Id. at 35-38 (97:11 - 100:12). He described his supervision as more oversight because staff generally had more immediate supervisors. Id. He did not have “the full authority to impose any disciplinary action” and could only make recommendations to management. Id. at 40 (102:2-21). His recommendations were implemented or approved “between 10 to 20 percent” of the time. Id. at 41 (103:3-12). Likewise, Pang interviewed job applicants, but he only made recommendations to upper management for approval and did not hire anyone himself. Id. at 41 (103:13-21). He believes he was a good manager, id. at 23-24 (85:19 - 86:7), but he was frustrated that not all his suggestions were implemented by those higher up in the company, id. at 24-27 (86:22 - 89:16).
In October 2017, Pang resigned from the program director position, dissatisfied with his new duties. Id. at 13 (73:1-7). When he resigned, he thought he would be able to return to the marketing representative position. Id. at 57-58. Upon learning that was not a possibility, he agreed with ADH that he would continue in the program director position for the same salary but with
additional marketing and census development responsibilities. Id. at 13 (73:3-7); id. at 59. To meet all his responsibilities, Pang began to work 10 to 12 hours a day, 6 days each week. Id. at 15-16, 20 (77:20 - 78:8, 82:2-9). He continued to report to Wright. Id. at 59.
In June 2018, Pang began reporting to regional director Chris Morris. ECF 61-3, ¶ 2. Morris testified he found Rainbow's performance to be poor, reflecting decreased financial performance, no admissions, and a declining level of business. Id. ¶ 3. Additionally, Morris found that Pang interacted with staff unprofessionally. Id. ¶ 4. Disciplinary Action Forms indicated Pang received written warnings for separate incidents in July and early August 2018, concerning his failure to notify managers that auditors from an outside agency visited the facility and his failure to notify supervisors when an employee had called out for the day and “jeopardize[d] the operational integrity of the center.” ECF 61-4, at 4-7. Morris testified that he and Wright decided on August 3 to terminate Pang's employment “because of his lack of admissions and not meeting financial goals and expectations, inability to effectively manage the program and staff, inappropriate delegation of authority, refusal to accept responsibility for actions or inactions, and because his salary was not commensurate with his performance.” ECF 61-3, ¶ 5. No one communicated this decision to Pang on August 3.
On August 4, Pang emailed Morris to inform him he would be taking leave to care for his injured wife. Id. ¶ 6; ECF 61-2, at 44-45 (126:1 - 127:19), 68. He attached an Employee Time Off Request Form requesting sick leave from August 7 to August 17. ECF 61-2, at 69. The form was not an FMLA request, and Pang testified he does not remember filling out any other form for his time off. Id. at 45-46 (127:12 - 128:13); see also ECF 61-3, ¶ 8 (Morris testimony that Pang did not request FMLA leave from him). He could not recall if he contacted anyone at human resources after emailing Morris. ECF 61-2, at 45-47 (127:12 - 129:22). After receiving Pang's
email, Morris texted Pang, “Ephraim . . . I received your email regarding PTO . . . I will be there Monday to discuss plans.” Id. at 70.
On August 6, Morris communicated to Pang that ADH had decided to terminate his employment. Id. at 71-75; ECF 61-4, at 11. The next day, Morris announced the decision to a group of seniors at Rainbow, stating the company was moving in a different direction. ECF 61-3, ¶ 9; ECF 61-4, at 10-11. Morris spoke in English, and another employee, Gang (Nancy) Xiao, translated the announcement into Mandarin. ECF 61-4, at 10-11. Xiao stated,...
To continue reading
Request your trial