Smith-Schrenk v. Genon Energy Servs., L.L.C.
| Decision Date | 12 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION H-13-2902 |
| Parties | JOAN SMITH-SCHRENK, Plaintiff, v. GENON ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Pending before the court are defendants, Genon Energy Services, L.L.C. ("Genon Services") and Genon Energy, Inc.'s ("Genon Energy") motions for summary judgment. Dkts. 17, 19. After considering all the briefing, record evidence,1 and applicable law, the court is of the opinion that Genon Services's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 17) should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and Genon Energy's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 19) should be GRANTED.
Plaintiff, Joan Smith-Schrenk was hired by Genon Services as a manager in its Ethics & Compliance ("E&C") Department in March 2010.2 Her duties included investigating, monitoring, and reporting potential regulatory or ethical violations.3 Plaintiff's position required "excellent communication skills" because she regularly corresponded with employees, including senior level executives.4 Jane Champion, the director of Genon Services's E&C Department, was plaintiff's immediate supervisor.5 Champion reported to the general counsel, Michael Jines.6
The E&C Department was consistently busy, requiring plaintiff to work 50-60 hours per week.7 Champion, however, worked a reduced schedule of approximately 26 hours per week, which she negotiated as a term of her employment with Genon Services.8 According to Genon Services, this reduced schedule caused consternation among the lower level employees of the E&C Department, including plaintiff.9 Soon after beginning her employment, plaintiff complained toemployees outside of the E&C Department about the heavy workload and Champion's demanding managerial style.10
Plaintiff's work performance was generally satisfactory; however, Champion had concerns regarding plaintiff's writing style, which tended to include unnecessary details and "bizarre asides."11 In March 2011, plaintiff received a high annual review from Champion, who noted that plaintiff met all expectations.12 By September 2011, however, Champion gave plaintiff her mid-year evaluation and provided a development plan aimed at correcting plaintiff's communication and time management issues.13 Champion wrote: "I would like to see you be focused, clear, concise and careful in your communications and set realistic deadlines and then manage your tasks accordingly."14
In the March 2012 review, Champion noted improvement in plaintiff's performance, but also reiterated that plaintiff needed to maintain such improvement by meeting deadlines and communicating concisely.15 The review indicated that plaintiff had only met "most expectations."16Plaintiff acknowledged that she agreed with the review.17 Plaintiff also received a performance salary increase around this time.18
In early 2012, plaintiff began missing more work in order to take care of her mother and her own health needs. A cyst on plaintiff's neck began enlarging, causing plaintiff concern that she might have cancer.19 A biopsy was performed on January 26, 2012.20 The results were inconclusive, but the doctors advised her that she should have the cyst removed as soon as possible.21 Plaintiff scheduled the surgery for February 2012; however, plaintiff postponed the surgery because of the lengthy recovery time and her care-taking obligations for her mother.22 Champion referred plaintiff to the surgeon that performed the removal procedure in May 2012.23 Plaintiff often discussed her and her mother's medical issues with Champion.24 According to Genon Services, Champion tried to be supportive and offer words of encouragement.25
In late March, plaintiff requested intermittent FMLA leave beginning April 4 in order to take care of her mother.26 Plaintiff maintains that Champion's reaction was immediately hostile, andChampion became visibly upset, telling plaintiff she would "get back to her."27 Thereafter, plaintiff asserts that Champion remained hostile toward her leave requests. Specifically, after requesting a reduced workload, plaintiff claims that Champion, instead, increased her workload.28 On another occasion, plaintiff requested permission to leave early to complete paperwork related to her mother's hospital stay, and Champion asked if someone else could take care of it.29 Champion also emailed plaintiff asking where she was when plaintiff had already informed Champion she would be out to take care of her mother.30 On April 17, plaintiff informed Champion she needed to leave by 4:00 p.m. to fill out paperwork related to her mother's funeral arrangements.31 Champion scheduled a meeting at 3:00 p.m. and held plaintiff in the meeting until after 4:30 p.m.32
Despite Champion's purported hostility toward plaintiff's leave requests, Genon Services granted all of the leave requested by plaintiff.33 However, many of plaintiff's absences were taken with little to no advance notice, causing disruption in the E&C Department.34 Because Champion believed that plaintiff's performance was declining, she wrote a coaching-for-improvement plan inApril 2012.35 The plan was not intended to be a disciplinary action.36 Champion noted that she had confidence that plaintiff could improve her performance and meet expectations.37 Champion planned to meet with plaintiff about the coaching plan on April 18, 2012.38 Smith, however, did not attend work that day. Instead, she told Champion she needed to take full-time FMLA leave, effective immediately.39
Plaintiff maintains while she was out on full-time FMLA leave, Champion continued to call and email her requiring her to perform work assignments, including updating compliance cases, revising a safety review project, and dropping off files at the office.40 Plaintiff contends that she spent 20-40 hours working while on unpaid leave.41
Prior to plaintiff taking full-time leave, Champion asked her supervisor, Michael Jines, if she could hire a temporary employee given plaintiff's frequent absences.42 After posting a temporary position for several weeks, Champion and her supervisor realized that no qualified candidates would accept this type position on a temporary basis.43 However, they decided, given the workload of theE&C Department, that hiring a permanent employee was justified.44 They also recognized that if plaintiff's performance problems persisted, having another permanent employee would also be helpful.45 Plaintiff learned from a co-worker on May 22, 2012, while on leave, that a permanent position similar to hers had been posted on Genon Services's website.46
Plaintiff returned to work on June 18, 2012.47 On June 20, 2012, Champion discussed the previously prepared coaching plan with plaintiff.48 The plan included objectives for plaintiff to continue improvement with her communication skills, commitment to deadlines, organizational abilities, and time management.49 The plan also advised plaintiff that she should give 48 hours notice of absences "when possible."50 Plaintiff claims this requirement was put in place for her alone.51 Plaintiff also recalled that the majority of the coaching session was spent reviewing a list of absences, which were primarily medically related absences.52
After returning from leave, plaintiff also learned that Genon Services was planning to hire another employee in a position equivalent to hers when she saw paperwork on Shawn Oiler's desk.53On June 25, Oiler noted:
I followed-up with Jane this morning. At this time, they can't make a decision. They need a little more time to evaluate the situation with Joan[ ]. As such, I recommended that we place the req on Hold for now until a final decision could be made. Jane called Caleb and let him know that we need a bit more time before a final decision could be made. We'll stay in contact with him and send updates as they occur.54
Plaintiff maintains that Genon Services delayed the hiring of the new employee because they expected she would quit or be terminated. Plaintiff cites to different notes from Shawn Oiler on June 18, 2012, which provided:
I spoke to Jane Champion to determine if she was ready to make a final hiring decision regarding Caleb. While she did follow-up with some of Caleb's former Managers & Supervisors and Mike Jines is okay with the Hire, she cannot make a decision at this time. Joan Smith returned to work this week. The return was unplanned and unexpected. She and Mike wish to evaluate the situation for the next week before making a final decision. I'll follow up with Jane next Monday.55
Moreover, plaintiff learned from other employees that Champion had been approaching energy traders and other employees asking them to "rate" plaintiff's performance in writing.56 Plaintiff believed this was another example of her being singled out following her FMLA leave. Three weeks after her return, plaintiff resigned.57 Plaintiff believed she was going to be fired, so she tendered her resignation letter on July 9, 2012, citing the hostile work environment Champion had created following her FMLA approved absences and medical issues.58
Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 1, 2013. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff alleged causes of action under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") and the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA"), including FMLA retaliation and harassment resulting in a hostile work environment, FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation resulting in constructive discharge, ADA discrimination and harassment resulting in a hostile work environment, and ADA discrimination resulting in constructive discharge. Dkts. 1, 20. Specifically, plaintiff claims she was constructively discharged and retaliated against for taking leave under the FMLA. Plaintiff further asserts that while she was on full-time FMLA leave, defendants interfered with her leave by asking her to perform 20-40 hours of work. Finally, plaintiff alleges that she also suffered a hostile work environment and was...
To continue reading
Request your trial