Rodriguez-Ortega v. Rich

• Docket Number: Civ. 21-cv-01129 JCH/KK
• Decision Date: 26 September 2024
• Citation: Rodriguez-Ortega v. Rich, Civ. 21-cv-01129 JCH/KK (D. N.M. Sep 26, 2024)
• Parties: JEREMY RODRIGUEZ-ORTEGA and JOSHUA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID RICH, KENNETH LUCERO, in their official and individual capacities, and NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico

1

JEREMY RODRIGUEZ-ORTEGA and JOSHUA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiffs, v. DAVID RICH, KENNETH LUCERO, in their official and individual capacities, and NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Defendants.

Civ. No. 21-cv-01129 JCH/KK

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

September 26, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment on Jeremy Rodriguez-Ortega's Claims (ECF No. 166) filed by Defendants David Rich, Kenneth Lucero, and the New Mexico Department of Health (“NMDOH”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Defendants seek summary judgment on Plaintiff Jeremy Rodriguez-Ortega's federal claims for interference and retaliation in violation of the Federal Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) against Defendant Rich and on his state-law claim for violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (“NMHRA”) against Defendants Rich, Lucero, and the NMDOH. Having considered the motion, briefs, evidence, and applicable law, the Court finds that Defendant Rich is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff Rodriguez-Ortega's claims for FMLA interference (Count I) and FMLA retaliation (Count II). Dismissal of the FMLA claims resolves all the remaining federal claims in the case. The Court declines supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims and will remand those claims to the state court from which they were removed. The Court will not rule on whether Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the NMHRA claim, leaving that decision for the state court. Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment in part.

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party initially bears the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Shapolia v. Los Alamos Nat'l Lab., 992 F.2d 1033, 1036 (10th Cir. 1993). Once the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must “come forward with specific facts showing” that genuine issues remain for trial. Id. The nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and by his own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). A court must construe all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Quaker State Minit-Lube, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 52 F.3d 1522, 1527 (10th Cir. 1995). Only disputes of fact that might affect the outcome of the case will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). There is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. See id. at 248.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The evidence before the Court, viewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, shows the following:

A. Jeremy Rodriguez-Ortega's Duties and Medical Condition

Plaintiff Jeremy Rodriguez-Ortega was employed by the NMDOH Human Resources (“HR”) as an HR Labor Analyst starting in June 2018. (See Rodriguez-Ortega Dep. 16:1-10, ECF No. 166-1; Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. (“Defs.' MSJ”), Undisputed Fact (“UF”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 166.)^[1] As part of his HR duties, Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega assisted in preparing disciplinary actions for individuals. (Defs.' MSJ, UF ¶ 1, ECF No. 166.) David Rich was the NMDOH HR Bureau Labor Manager and was Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega's direct manager. (Pls.' First Am. Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pls.' MSJ”), UF ¶ 5, ECF No. 74.)^[2] Mr. Rich is an employer under the FMLA because he acted directly and indirectly in the interest of NMDOH. (Id., UF ¶ 6.)

Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega suffers from Polycystic Kidney Disease and Pancreatitis, both FMLA qualifying medical conditions. (Pls.' MSJ, UF ¶ 4, ECF No. 74.) His condition causes him excruciating pain, so he takes a lot of medications on a regular basis. (See Rodriguez-Ortega Aff. ¶ 10, ECF No. 184-5; Rodriguez-Ortega Dep. 153:23-155:11, ECF No. 166-11.) During flareups, he takes heavy medication, including narcotic painkillers. (See Rodriguez-Ortega Aff. ¶ 10, ECF No. 184-5.) Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega requested and received intermittent FMLA leave beginning in July 2018 to July 2019. (Compare Am. Compl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 106; with Answer ¶ 14, ECF No. 112.) At some point, Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega requested and received a larger monitor for his desktop at the office because of his difficulty seeing small text, but otherwise he never asked for any kind of accommodation from NMDOH, and NMDOH never denied a request he made for accommodation. (See Rodriguez-Ortega Dep. 190:10-191:12, ECF No. 166-1; AR 20-028 6/11/21 Hr'g 146:27-1:47:37.)

B. NMDOH's Leave Policy

NMDOH has an Absences and Other Leave policy that Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega saw and received. (AR 20-028 6/11/21 Hr'g 1:59:00-2:00:56; Pls.' MSJ, Ex. 4, ECF No. 74-4.)^[3] The policy says that employees “shall request leave in advance, except for unanticipated medical conditions, illnesses or other emergencies, by completing” and submitting the proper leave request form to their supervisor. (Pls.' MSJ, Ex. 4, ECF No. 74-4 at 1, 3 of 6.) Per the policy, NMDOH employees were to call a designated number “at their earliest opportunity and no later than 30 minutes after the scheduled beginning of their workday.” (Id. at 4 of 6.) The policy also stated: “If the employee is incapacitated or if extenuating circumstances exist, a family member may call in on behalf of the employee.” (Id.)

As relevant here, “Absent Without Leave (AWOL”)” is defined by the policy as “failing to report within the first hour of any assigned shift/regular work schedule without authorization, having an unauthorized absence, or appearing for work in violation of Department policy governing readiness for work.” (Id. at 1 of 6.) According to the policy, employees are not paid for periods of AWOL and do not accrue sick or annual leave for AWOL periods. (Id. at 6 of 6.) The policy deems four or more consecutive days of AWOL as job abandonment, (id. at 2 of 6), which “shall be grounds for dismissal without having first imposed progressive discipline,” (id. at 6 of 6).

Mr. Rich's understanding of the policy was that an employee (who does not work in a facility or do shift work) who fails to notify a supervisor 30 minutes before his shift that he will be absent will be marked AWOL, even when the employee has intermittent FMLA leave. (See Rich Dep. 110:25-112:14, ECF No. 74-5.)

C. Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega's February 2020 absences

Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega was hospitalized for several days, from February 20-23, 2020, due to his disabling health conditions. (See Defs.' UF ¶ 4, ECF No. 166; 20-028 AR 6/11/21 Hr'g 1:18:44-1:21:33; Rodriguez-Ortega Aff. ¶ 4, ECF No. 184-5; Pls.' MSJ, Ex. 2, ECF No. 74-2 at 5 of 11.) Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega did not notify NMDOH or his supervisor, Mr. Rich, that he was ill and unable to work. (See Defs.' UF ¶ 4, ECF No. 166.) On or about February 21, 2020, Mr. Rich contacted Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega's brother, Joshua Rodriguez, and learned that Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega was hospitalized. (Pls.' MSJ, UF ¶ 10, ECF No. 74.)

Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega did not work from February 21-28, 2020. (See Pls.' Resp. 5, UF ¶ 2, ECF No. 184; Pls.' MSJ, Ex. 10, ECF No. 74-10 at 3-4 of 4.) He was incapacitated for about a week and a half, unable to work, and under heavy narcotics. (See AR 20-028 6/11/21 Hr'g 1:18:441:21:33.) When he was released from the hospital but still incapacitated, somebody stayed with him to assist with his daily needs. (See id. at 1:18:44-1:22:00.)^[4] He returned to work on March 2, 2020. (Rodriguez-Ortega Aff. ¶ 4, ECF No. 184-5.)

D. March 2020 Meeting, Retroactive FMLA Leave for February Absences, and AWOLs

On or about March 4, 2020, Mr. Rich and Teresa Padilla, the then-NMDOH Director of HR, met with Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega to discuss his job, his medical needs, and how his health was affecting his job. (Defs.' MSJ, UF ¶ 5, ECF No. 166; Rodriguez-Ortega Aff. ¶ 5, ECF No. 184-5.) Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega was given FMLA forms to take to his doctors so that he could be approved for FMLA leave. (Pls.' Resp., UF ¶¶ 5-6, ECF No. 184; Rodriguez-Ortega Aff. ¶ 6, ECF No. 1845.) Mr. Rich told Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega that he had an opportunity to correct his behavior of not notifying him when he was going to be out from work for whatever reason. (See Pls.' MSJ, UF ¶ 12, ECF No. 74; Rich Dep. 114:1-9, 117:8-25, ECF No. 74-15.) During the meeting, Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega did not ask for any kind of accommodation, because he did not need one. (See Rodriguez-Ortega Dep. 94:18-97:21, ECF No. 166-1.)

Mr Rich also talked to him in the meeting about medical retirement. (Rich Dep. 113:18114:15, ECF No. 74-17.) Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega was provided with the information and forms regarding early disability retirement and short-term disability, and he was given instruction on how to complete the documentation. (See 20-028 AR 6/11/21 Hr'g 1:22:11-1:24:41.) They told him that he would be coded AWOL because he did not call in per NMDOH's policy, and any future incidents that he does not call-in per NMDOH's policy would be coded as AWOL and grounds for possible termination. (See id. at 1:24:41-1:25:32.) Further, they told him that in lieu of discipline for his AWOLs, they were reassigning his job duties and his only responsibility going forward was to qualify for disability retirement. (Rodriguez-Ortega Aff. ¶ 5, ECF No. 184-5.)^[5] Mr. Rodriguez-Ortega did not perform any work from home because he was told at the March 2020 meeting that his job duties were being stripped, his work assignments were being distributed to the other labor analysts, and he was to focus on his disability application for Social Security and...