Smith v. Daimler Trucks Na, LLC, Civil Action No. 7:14-2058-BHH-KFM
| Decision Date | 21 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 7:14-2058-BHH-KFM |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Tammie Smith, Plaintiff, v. Daimler Trucks NA, LLC, Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp., and Daimler Trucks NA Disability Benefits Plan, Defendants. |
This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment (doc. 32) and the defendants' partial motion for summary judgment (doc. 45). Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(A), and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in employment discrimination cases and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
In her amended complaint (doc. 24), the plaintiff alleges causes of action for: (1) interference with rights in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"); (2) retaliation in violation of the FMLA; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of contract accompanied by fraudulent act; (5) disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); (6) retaliation under Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"); (7) retaliation for filing a claim for workers' compensation benefits; and (8) denial of short term disability benefits in violation of Section 502 of the ERISA.
The plaintiff has moved for summary judgment (doc. 32) on Count VIII, and the defendants have moved for summary judgment (doc. 45) on all other claims.
The plaintiff began working for defendants Daimler Trucks NA and its subsidiary, Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp. (collectively "Daimler"), in the Assembly Department in 2003 (doc. 50-1, pl. dep. 17, 38). Daimler Trucks is the Plan Sponsor of defendant Daimler Trucks NA Disability Benefits Plan ("the Plan") (doc. 32-2 at SEA 14; doc. 32-3, Plan dep. 8). The Claims Administrator for the Plan is Sedgwick Claims Management Services ("Sedgwick") (doc. 32-2 at 14; doc. 32-3, Plan dep. 9-10).
At the time she was hired, the plaintiff recalls receiving a Guide for Employees, or something like it (doc. 45-1, pl. dep. 40-41; doc. 45-2 at 41-50). She cannot remember if she got different versions of the Guide for Employees during her employment (doc. 45-1, pl. dep. 41). However, she does recognize her signature dated May 3, 2011, on the "Important Notice" attached to the 2011 version of the Guide for Employees (id. 42), which states in pertinent part:
During the plaintiff's employment, she was granted FMLA leave from August 25-September 2, 2005; May 15-23, 2006, June 28-August 14, 2006, April 8-29, 2013, and June 20-July 1, 2013, and she had no issues with anyone from Daimler about taking such FMLA leave (doc. 45-1, pl. dep. 46-54, 56, 64-65, 69). The plaintiff also applied for benefits under Daimler's Short Term Disability Plan without experiencing any negative reaction, push-back, or animus in October 2012, April 2013, and June 2013 (id. 61-62, 65, 71).
The plaintiff's supervisor never had any problems with the plaintiff as an employee, and she never had to take any form of disciplinary action against her (doc. 50-2, Haskins dep. 7).
On Friday, September 27, 2013, the plaintiff injured her right hand at work when the torque gun she operated jerked and she felt a pop and tingling in her wrist (doc. 50-1, pl. dep. 72-73). She reported the matter to her team supervisor, Leonard Blackwell, the following Monday, September 29, 2013 (doc. 45-1, pl. dep. 74). Blackwell sent the plaintiff to the nurse, who applied a cold compress and gave her ibuprofen (id. 75). The plaintiff and Blackwell filled out an accident report, and the plaintiff signed it (id. 75-77; see doc. 45-3 at 42).
On October 3, 2013, the plaintiff joined Coop's Gym ("Coop's") in order to lose weight (id. 139, 142). She joined after learning about the gym at a health fair sponsored by Daimler (id. 141). She disclosed to Coop's that she had right side carpal tunnel syndrome (doc. 50-3, Coop's questionnaire). She began working out on October 4, 2013 (doc. 50-4, Coop's Check-in History).
On October 8, 2013, the plaintiff saw Daniel Peters, a physician assistant contracted to see Daimler's employees at the Gaffney Plant (doc. 50-1, pl. dep. 84-86; doc. 50-5, Peters dep. 12-15). The plaintiff informed Peters of her gym activities . Peters told the plaintiff to avoid using the treadmillat the gym, as she complained that the vibrations hurt her wrist (doc. 50-1, pl. dep. 113). Peters imposed certain restrictions in writing during this visit: (doc. 50-7, Peters notes). The plaintiff informed Peters that her job involved gripping tools (doc. 50-1, pl. dep. 87). Peters told the plaintiff that the restrictions were for her to get off the job she was on and "limited use" of her hand (id. 87-89). Michael Prouix, the assistant in the medical department, informed the plaintiff's supervisor (Dannon Haskins) and the defendant's safety supervisor (William Harris) of the written restrictions on October 8th and asked them whether they could accommodate those restrictions (doc. 50-8, Prouix email; doc. 50-2, Haskins dep. 8).
The plaintiff continued exercising at Coop's without any problems, and she informed her trainer of her condition and restrictions (doc. 50-1, pl. dep. 144-45). She worked out on the evenings of both October 10 and 16, 2013 (doc. 50-1, pl. dep. 143-44; doc. 50-4, Coop's Check-In History; doc. 50-9, Coop's Service Usage Detail).
During this time, Daimler was supposed to be providing the plaintiff with work consistent with her restrictions (doc. 50-1, pl. dep. 87-89; doc. 50-10, Sedgwick WC Claim File). Haskins first put the plaintiff on a job that required gripping (doc. 50-1, pl. dep. 90-91). When the plaintiff told Haskins that the job involved gripping, he moved the plaintiff to cleaning (id. 91-92). The plaintiff perceived Haskins to be helpful in trying to find a job that fit her restrictions (id. 92). The plaintiff was also assigned to work in the containment area where she had to fix and tighten parts, which violated her restrictions (id. 92-94). At first, someone was assigned with her because she was not supposed to be using the wrench and turning (id. 94). However, that person was later moved somewhere else, and the plaintiff was left alone to do the work (id. 94-95). The defendant also assigned the plaintiff to train someone on sub-panel work, which required using a torqueing power gun (id. 97-100). At first, the plaintiff could tell the person what to do, but when he was pulled away to do another job, the plaintiff "had to do it" (id. 99).
The plaintiff saw Peters for follow up on October 22, 2013 (id. 93; doc. 50-11, Peters notes). The plaintiff informed Peters what she had been doing at work, and Peters commented that it violated his restrictions (doc. 50-1, pl. dep. 103-04). Peters continued the same restrictions for the plaintiff (doc. 50-11, Peters notes). Peters told the plaintiff to tell her supervisor and team leader that the work she was performing violated her restrictions, which she did (doc. 50-1, pl. dep. 105-106). Haskins initially put the plaintiff back on cleaning, but it did not last long. The plaintiff was required to substitute for other employees and perform functions that violated her restrictions (id. 108).
On October 24, 2013, the plant nurse, Andrea Phillips, notified Sedgwick Insurance, which handles Daimler's workers' compensation and short term disability benefits, that the defendant did not question the plaintiff's injury (doc. 50-12, WC Claim File).
The plaintiff worked out again at Coop's on October 24, 2013 (doc. 50-1, pl. dep. 144-45; doc. 50-9, Coop's Service Usage Detail). Coop's posted a picture of the plaintiff on Facebook, congratulating her on her progress towards her weight loss goals (doc. 50-16, Coop's Facebook post).
Peters saw the plaintiff again on November 5, 2013. He reviewed the nerve conduction test, which confirmed carpal tunnel syndrome (doc. 50-13, Carolinas Center Nerve Test Report; doc. 50-5, Peters dep. 16, 19, 20). Peters continued the existing restrictions imposed on the plaintiff (doc. 50-14, Peters notes). The plaintiff went back to working on electrical panels or "helping out in sub areas" (doc. 50-1, pl. dep. 114). While the plaintiff at first had someone who was supposed to be helping her, that person left to cover another job, and she ended up doing work that was outside her restrictions (id.). Sometimes the plaintiff would ask co-workers to help her and sometimes co-workers wouldvolunteer to help her when she had to do work that violated her restrictions (id. 115). The plaintiff did not tell Haskins and Blackwell every time she had to do something that violated her restrictions because they knew her restrictions and saw her working alone, but she did tell them at times (id. 118-19).
The plaintiff worked out on November 4 and 11, 2013 (doc. 50-9, Coop's Service Usage Detail). On November 4th, Coop's posted to Facebook a picture of the plaintiff and mentioned her weight loss...
To continue reading
Request your trial