Richards v. Healthcare Res. Grp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 September 2016
• Docket Number: NO: 2:15-CV-134-RMP,: 2:15-CV-134-RMP
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Washington
• Parties: TONI L. RICHARDS, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHCARE RESOURCES GROUP, INC., a Washington corporation; CRYSTAL LARSEN and JOHN DOE LARSEN, and the marital property comprised thereof; and CANDICE NELSEN and JOHN DOE NELSEN, and the marital community comprised thereof, Defendants.

TONI L. RICHARDS, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHCARE RESOURCES GROUP, INC.,

a Washington corporation; CRYSTAL LARSEN and JOHN DOE LARSEN,

and the marital property comprised thereof; and CANDICE NELSEN

and JOHN DOE NELSEN, and the marital community comprised thereof, Defendants.

NO: 2:15-CV-134-RMP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

September 20, 2016

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BEFORE THIS COURT is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of all Plaintiff's claims against Defendants, ECF No. 53, and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 48.¹ Plaintiff, Toni Richards ("Richards"), isrepresented by Patrick Kirby and Michael Love. Defendants Healthcare Resource Group, Inc. ("HRG"), Crystal Larsen and John Doe Larsen, and Candice Nelsen and John Doe Nelsen, are represented by Michael Hines.

Ms. Richards filed suit against her former employer, HRG, claiming violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) et seq.; and RCW 49.60 et seq.; as well as Washington State law claims of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, outrage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision and retention. ECF No. 1 at 14-18.

The Court has reviewed the motions, the response memoranda and the reply memoranda, has heard argument from counsel, and is fully informed. The Court finds that Ms. Richards fails to meet her burden at the summary judgment stage and grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment of all claims.

JURISDICTION

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the claims under 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) et seq.; and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state law claims.

BACKGROUND

Ms. Richards was hired as a medical billing representative with Healthcare Resources Group ("HRG"). ECF No. 61 at 2, Larsen Decl. ¶ 4. It is undisputed that Ms. Richards was an "at will" employee. ECF No. 86 at 2. It also is undisputed thatMs. Richards never informed HRG that she was disabled until after her employment ended. ECF No. 86 at 2. Ms. Richards concedes that she never disclosed during the hiring process that she used the services of Division of Vocational Rehabilitation ("DVR) or that she ever needed accommodation. ECF No. 86 at 2. Ms. Richards also concedes that her disabilities did not impact her ability to perform any aspect of her HRG job duties. ECF No. 86 at 2.

Ms. Richards' responsibilities as an HRG billing representative involved reviewing billing and account receivables for customer accounts, assessing billing status, and rebilling as necessary. ECF No. 61 at 2, Larsen Decl. ¶ 3. Crystal Larsen was the sole person who possessed the authority to discipline or terminate Ms. Richards during Ms. Richards' employment. ECF No. 61 at 2; Larsen Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7.

Candice Nelsen worked as Ms. Richards' immediate supervisor under Ms. Larsen's authority and was responsible for assisting billing representatives, as well as assisting Ms. Larsen with administrative tasks. ECF No. 61 at 2, Larsen Decl. ¶ 5. During the period of Ms. Richards' tenure with HRG, Ms. Nelsen did not have the authority to discipline, impose a PIP, or terminate Ms. Richards. ECF No. 61 at 2, Larsen Decl. ¶ 8. Despite Ms. Nelsen's lack of authority to discipline or terminate Ms. Richards, it is undisputed that Ms. Nelsen attended at least two meetings with Ms. Larsen and Ms. Richards: first, when Ms. Larsen placed Ms. Richards on a performance improvement plan ("PIP"); and later when Ms. Larsen terminated Ms.Richards' employment. ECF No. 86 at 42; ECF No. 84-5, Kirby Aff., Ex C, Richards Dep. 103:23-24; ECF No. 84-5, Kirby Aff., Ex C, Richards Dep. 128:10-19. It also is undisputed that Ms. Nelsen signed Ms. Richards' termination letter along with Ms. Larsen. ECF No. 84-13, Kirby Aff. Ex. J.

Prior to being hired by HRG, Ms. Richards represented to HRG that she had extensive billing experience, but she still received the same general training by HRG as all other new, entry level billing representatives. ECF No. 61 at 4, Larsen Decl. ¶ 13. Ms. Richards' training included one day of general training followed by 2 to 3 days of direct peer training. ECF No. 61 at 4, Larsen Decl. ¶ 13. In addition, "[l]ead Kendra Gasaway provided multiple extra days of one-on-one training for Ms. Richards." ECF No. 61 at 4, Larsen Decl. ¶ 13.

Billing representatives received "TQA" evaluations from the Total Quality Assurance department, based on the accuracy of their processing of client accounts. ECF No. 61 at 5, Larsen Decl. ¶ 15. A passing score is 95% or higher. ECF No. 61 at 5, Larsen Decl. ¶ 15. Roughly three weeks after Ms. Richards began working at HRG, Ms. Richards received a TQA score of 61%, which was considered failing, followed the next week by another failing TQA score of 61%. ECF No. 61 at 5, Larsen Decl. ¶ 16. Ms. Larsen considered the scores to be "two very bad scores even for a new employee. Ms. Richards was the worst performing billingrepresentative on my team by a long shot, including other new billing representatives." ECF No. 61 at 5, Larsen Decl. ¶ 16.

Ms. Richards contends that her training was confusing and that she had difficulty reading the training manual on the computer screen. ECF No. 85 at 2, Richards Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7, 24. Ms. Richards stated that "I do not feel HRG provided me with proper training to perform my job duties while I worked at HRG." ECF No. 85 at 2, Richards Decl. ¶ 27. Ms. Richards testified that she needed "more training, but not accommodation." ECF No. 84-5, Kirby Aff., Ex. C, Richards Dep. at 134:3.

During this same time period Ms. Larsen received reports that Ms. Richards was a very difficult colleague. ECF No. 61 at 5-6, Larsen Decl. ¶ 17. "She was argumentative, challenging, and combative to her supervisors and trainers. She was very unreceptive to training and coaching." ECF No. 61 at 5-6, Larsen Decl. ¶ 17.

Ms. Larsen states that based on Ms. Richards' poor TQA scores and her "terrible attitude," Ms. Larsen made the decision to place Ms. Richards on a PIP. ECF No. 61 at 6, Larsen Decl. ¶¶ 17, 18. Ms. Larsen states that she told Ms. Nelsen that she was placing Ms. Richards on a PIP and instructed Ms. Nelsen to prepare a draft PIP for Ms. Larsen's review and approval. ECF No. 61 at 6, Larsen Decl. ¶ 18. Ms. Larsen states that "Ms. Nelsen did not make the decision to place Ms. Richards on a PIP. She did not even make a recommendation to do so." ECF No. 61 at 6, Larsen Decl. ¶¶ 18, 28. Ms. Larsen states about the PIP that "The decision solelywas mine, and was based on Ms. Richards' failing TQA scores and her bad attitude." ECF No. 61 at 6, Larsen Decl. ¶ 18.

Ms. Nelsen finalized the draft PIP and emailed it to Ms. Larsen on February 4, 2015, at 12:52 p.m. ECF No. 61 at 6, Larsen Decl. ¶ 19. Also on February 4, 2015, at 1:10 p.m. Ms. Richards emailed a request for her job description to Lindsay Berger, an administrative assistant with HRG's Human Resources department. ECF No. 60, Nelson Decl., Ex C. Ms. Richards' email stated:

I have been working with the Department of Vocational Rehab, (DVR) [sic] now that I'm employed they need a copy of my job description for their records, so they can close my case in 60 days. If you could e-mail me a copy so I could copy it and send, I would greatly appreciate it.

ECF No. 60, Nelsen Decl., Ex. C.

It is undisputed that the first time that Ms. Richards told any employee at HRG that she was working with DVR was when she sent the February 4^th "DVR email" to Ms. Berger. ECF No. 84-5, Kirby Aff., Ex. C, Richards Dep. 87:9-24; 103:17-22. Ms. Berger informed Ms. Richards that she needed to get her job description from her supervisor or manager. ECF No. 60, Ex. C. Ms. Richards admits that other than the "DVR email" she did not "have any other discussions with anyone at HRG regarding DVR." ECF No. 60, Ex. E, Richards Dep. 103:19-22.

At 2:47 p.m. on February 4, 2015, Ms. Richards forwarded the "DVR email" exchange between herself and Ms. Berger to Ms. Nelsen. ECF No. 85 at 3, Richards Decl. ¶ 10; ECF No. 85, Richards Aff., Ex A. Ms. Nelsen testified that she does notrecall ever reading Ms. Richards' forwarded "DVR email" until after Ms. Richards was terminated.² ECF No. 60 at 7, Nelsen Decl. ¶ 23. In addition, Ms. Nelsen states in her declaration that she was not familiar with DVR or its work with disabled persons until the present lawsuit was filed. ECF No. 60 at 7, Nelsen Decl. ¶ 24.

On February 6, 2015, Ms. Larsen and Ms. Nelsen met with Ms. Richards to review the PIP. Id. ECF No. 61 at 6, Larsen Decl. ¶ 20. Ms. Larsen explained to Ms. Richards that HRG would be putting her on a PIP due to her low TQA scores that she needed to improve. ECF No. 55-1, Richards Dep. 104:15-21. The PIP identified three specific areas of concern regarding Ms. Richards' workplace performance: (1) that she had two failed TQA scores, (2) that she wasargumentative during training and TQA meetings, and (3) that she did not take ownership of her actions when working the accounts. ECF No. 60 at 15, Nelsen Decl., Ex. A. Ms. Richards raised her concerns about the training she had received, which the parties discussed. ECF No. 84-5, Kirby Aff., Ex. C, Richards Dep. 107:23-25, 108:1-5.

After reviewing the PIP, Ms. Richards and Ms. Nelsen signed the document. ECF No. 55-1, Richards Dep. 105:9-18. Someone wrote on the PIP, "Toni [Richards] to provide list of training items to Candice [Nelsen ]." ECF No. 60 at 19, Nelsen Decl., Ex A. Ms. Nelsen and Ms. Larsen state that they witnessed Ms. Richards initial the handwritten note at the meeting. ECF No. 60 at 5-6, Nelsen Decl. ¶ 19; ECF No. 61, Larsen Decl. at ¶ 23. Ms. Richards asserts that she did not write on the note at the meeting and that her initials were forged after the meeting. ECF No. 55-1, Richards Dep. 125:1-25,...