Quayle v. Cmty. Health Ctrs. of S. Iowa, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 4:14–cv–00043–JEG,4:14–cv–00043–JEG |
| Citation | 97 F.Supp.3d 1086 |
| Parties | Rickey Quayle, Plaintiff, v. Community Health Centers of Southern Iowa, Inc., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Thomas W. Foley, Katie A. Ervin Carlson, Margret Elizabeth White, Babich Goldman, P.C., Des Moines, IA, Kodi A. Brotherson, Becker and Brotherson, Sac City, IA, for Plaintiff.
George E. Martin, III, Heidi A. Guttau-Fox, Kenneth W. Hartman, Baird Holm LLP, Omaha, NE, for Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 18, by Community Health Centers of Southern Iowa (Defendant or CHCSI). Rickey Quayle (Plaintiff) resists. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on April 30, 2015. The Motion is fully submitted and ready for disposition.
Plaintiff alleges Defendant discriminated against him because of his age and sex in violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 –34, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Iowa Code Ch. 216.
Defendant is a health care center that operates in southern Iowa. From 2008 until May 2012, Plaintiff worked as a lab/x-ray technician at Defendant's facility in Leon, Iowa. Prior to working at CHCSI, and beginning in 1969, Plaintiff worked for Decatur Medical Services (DMS). In 2008, DMS closed, and many of DMS's former employees, including Plaintiff, began working for Defendant. Plaintiff testified in his deposition that he received a new supervisor at that time, but his day-to-day activities did not change.
Between 2008 and 2011, Gloria Redman and Janeen Boswell served as Plaintiff's supervisors. Jodi Wharff, the clinical director, became Plaintiff's supervisor in July 2011 and was his supervisor until his termination.
Throughout the course of his employment with Defendant, Plaintiff received discipline and instructions to modify his practices. On December 1, 2010, Redman issued Plaintiff a “reeducation form”1 instructing him not to use white-out on patients' charts. On August 3, 2011, Wharff told Plaintiff he had been improperly disposing of sharps by not placing them in a container secured to the wall.
On August 10, 2011, Wharff issued Plaintiff a “level three”2 disciplinary form for using expired controls, handling specimens without wearing gloves, using expired lab supplies, and improperly disposing of sharps. Plaintiff testified in his deposition that he took this written discipline very seriously, and he did not fail to wear gloves after receiving the reprimand. Plaintiff also asserted that he had not used disposable or one-patient supplies on multiple patients.
Wharff provided Plaintiff an employee evaluation on October 19, 2011. This was the first formal evaluation Plaintiff received as an employee of Defendant. Wharff ranked Plaintiff as “superior” or “good” in the job knowledge, quality, reliability, availability, independence, and judgment categories. However, she indicated that Plaintiff needed improvement in the productivity, creativity, initiative, adherence to policy, and interpersonal relationships categories. Based on this evaluation, Plaintiff received a two-percent raise. The evaluation form indicated that if he had received higher rankings, Plaintiff could have received up to a three percent raise.
Also on October 19, 2011, Wharff gave Plaintiff a disciplinary warning asserting that he continued to use expired controls and failed to follow proper glove procedure. Plaintiff asserts that he did not fail to wear gloves after he received initial counseling about the issue and he did not use expired controls.
Defendant further asserts that in December 2011, Wharff observed Plaintiff improperly disposing of sharps. Plaintiff responds that he “did not put items in an uncovered trash can that belonged in the sharps container.” Decl. Rickey Quayle ¶ 6, Pl.App. 16. Plaintiff asserts that Wharff did not give him any instruction on proper sharps disposal in December 2011.
Wharff testified in her deposition that she heard reports from others and personally observed Plaintiff either not wearing gloves or not changing them appropriately in January 2012. Doug Jaeger, Defendant's CEO at the time of Plaintiff's termination, also testified that he had “[p]robably over a half a dozen” conversations with Plaintiff about Plaintiff's failure to follow OSHA guidelines. Like Wharff, Jaeger testified he personally observed Plaintiff failing to comply with OSHA requirements by not wearing gloves when drawing blood, eating in the lab area, and not properly disposing of sharps.
Jaeger further testified that he asked Dr. Richard, a physician and Defendant's lab director at the time, to deliver Plaintiff several reeducation forms in January 2012. Jaeger testified he did this because Dr. Richard was Plaintiff's supervisor at DMS and Jaeger thought Plaintiff might listen to him. Jaeger testified that Dr. Richard encouraged Jaeger not to terminate Plaintiff because Plaintiff was highly educated in his field and well-respected.
Dr. Richard delivered Plaintiff a reeducation form regarding proper glove procedure on January 10, 2012. The same day, Dr. Richard gave Plaintiff reeducation forms regarding leaving the x-ray room door open while patients were in the room and eating and drinking in the lab room. Plaintiff signed both forms, and both forms warned that further infractions could lead to suspension or termination. Plaintiff testified that Dr. Richard told him not to worry about the forms and “[j]ust go ahead and sign everything.” Def. Ex. 15, Def.App. 72–73.3
Another level three disciplinary form dated April 24, 2012, appears in Plaintiff's personnel file. This form provides that Plaintiff failed to take x-rays that complied with the requests of Iowa Radiology. Jodi Wharff testified that Iowa Radiology called Plaintiff and asked him to complete certain x-rays, but he did not. Wharff also asserted that Plaintiff failed to complete the correct number of x-rays indicated by various codes contained in doctors' orders. The disciplinary form indicates that Plaintiff was not asked to sign it. Plaintiff testified he did not receive a copy of this form and no one discussed it with him.
In late April 2012, an elderly female patient came to Defendant's Leon clinic, and a doctor entered an order for the patient to have several tests. The tests were not conducted on the same day as the patient's appointment, and she arranged to return on May 1, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. Amber Swartz, a lab technician, testified that she put a copy of a “Superbill” for this patient in a “pile of superbills of upcoming labs that [the lab technicians] were supposed to be doing.” Def. Ex. 34, Def.App. 225, 48:1–7. A Superbill contains a doctor's orders to draw certain specimens and conduct specific labs.
On May 1, 2012, the patient returned before Swartz's shift began. Plaintiff drew blood from the patient. Plaintiff asserts that, although the doctor ordered three test, only orders for two of these tests appeared on the patient's chart. Plaintiff also states that a nurse told him the patient needed the two tests on the chart, but the nurse did not mention the other test.4 On the day the patient returned, someone created a new Superbill for her that only called for two blood tests. When Swartz began her shift later in the day, she asked Plaintiff if he saw the Superbill she put in the pile. Plaintiff replied that he had not seen it. Plaintiff asserted in his deposition that he “didn't know anything about [the] pile.” Pl.App. 7, 93:1–4.
After Swartz determined Plaintiff had not seen the Superbill, Swartz and Plaintiff realized the patient would have to return and have additional blood drawn. Plaintiff then threw the Superbill that had been in the pile into a trash can.
Swartz's written description of this event and her testimony assert she retrieved the Superbill from the trash and reported to Wharff that Plaintiff had thrown it away. Plaintiff asserts that after Swartz told him she would take care of scheduling the patient to return for additional testing, he simply threw away the Superbill and continued with his other work.
Plaintiff acknowledges it violates Defendant's policies to throw documents containing patient health information in a trash can. However, Plaintiff testified that Defendant's document destruction policy “was a policy that they came up with, and everybody was kind of getting used to it, [but throwing away documents containing personal health information] did happen.” Def. Ex. 15, Def.App. 107. Plaintiff further asserts that he realized his mistake in throwing away the Superbill and he returned a few minutes later to retrieve it from the trash. Plaintiff explains he asked Swartz about the Superbill, and she said she shredded it.
Jaeger had final authority to decide whether to terminate Plaintiff. Jaeger presented Plaintiff with a termination letter dated May 7, 2012.5 The brief letter explains that the “primary reason” for Plaintiff's termination was his “willful destruction of medical/patient information (doctor's order for laboratory tests).” Def. Ex. 30, Def.App. 200. Jaeger testified that Plaintiff's “lack of ability to handle the confidentiality of patient privacy on top of all the previous violations were enough to say ‘enough is enough.’ ” Def. Ex. 29, Def.App. 194, 34:19–22.
After Plaintiff's termination, Swartz assumed Plaintiff's duties.6 At the time, Swartz was thirty-four years old. Defendant also directed a part-time lab technician to help Swartz.
Plaintiff alleges other employees received more favorable treatment than he did. According to the affidavit of Jamie Miller, a nurse formerly employed by Defendant, a doctor at Defendant's clinic threw away a Superbill because he did not want a patient to be billed. Miller asserts that she told Wharff about the incident, but the “doctor's behavior continued.” Miller Decl. ¶ 6,...
To continue reading
Request your trial