Smith v. R.R. Donnelley, 10-1417
| Decision Date | 16 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | NO. 10-1417,10-1417 |
| Parties | STEPHEN G. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. R.R. DONNELLEY AND SONS COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
CIVIL ACTION
Presently before this Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13), Plaintiff's Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 15), and Defendant's Reply (Doc. 17). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies Defendant's Motion.
Plaintiff, a Pennsylvania resident, initiated this action against Defendant, a Delaware corporation, for allegedly wrongfully terminating his employment because he pursued a worker's compensation claim. The facts giving rise to Plaintiff's Complaint are as follows. Plaintiff worked for Defendant from 1975, most recently as an assistant press operator at Defendant's plant located at 391 Steel Way, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17601 ("Steel Way Plant"), until his employment was terminated on June 8, 2009. Although Plaintiff received a few warnings regarding attendance and quality issues during his tenure with Defendant, his overall employment was satisfactory.
On March 12, 2009, Plaintiff was working beside a print press when he claims he inadvertently collided heads with his coworker Amanda Sierra. At the time, Plaintiff did notthink he sustained any injuries from the collision and continued to work. Over the next few days, however, Plaintiff noticed problems developing in his left eye. On March 19, 2009, Plaintiff sought treatment with a physician who diagnosed Plaintiff with detached retinas in both eyes and a vitreous hemorrhage in his left eye. The physician indicated that the collision Plaintiff suffered at work could have been a possible cause of the detached retinas, or could have aggravated pre-existing retinal tears. Plaintiff ultimately had eye surgery on March 20, 2009 to treat the condition.
On March 20, 2009, one hour before the surgery was to take place, Plaintiff called his supervisor, Candido Crespo, to report that he had suffered a work-related injury resulting from the collision with Ms. Sierra eight days earlier. Shortly after speaking with Crespo and upon Crespo's advice, Plaintiff called and reported the accident to Clare Sterback, a MedCor Workplace Management Nurse assigned to the Steel Way Plant. In an email to several of Defendant's management personnel, Ms. Sterback indicated that she would file a claim with Workers Compensation and collect the required medical information to pass on to the claim representative. (See Doc. 16, Ex. F.)
On March 21, 2009, Mr. Crespo interviewed Ms. Sierra as part of the internal investigation into the alleged incident. Ms. Sierra indicated that she could not recall ever having collided with Plaintiff. Ken Engle another co-worker who worked on the same press as Plaintiff and Ms. Sierra also informed Mr. Crespo that he had not observed any collision, nor had he heard Plaintiff mention the collision prior to Plaintiff's report. (See Doc. 16, Ex. G.)
On March 23, 2009, Plaintiff was interviewed by Sonya Lucas, an employee of Gallagher Bassett, the third party administrator for Defendant's worker's compensation benefit program.Gallagher Bassett ultimately notified Plaintiff that Defendant would not pay worker's compensation benefits based on the alleged collision. (See Doc. 16, Ex. B.) Plaintiff never filed a claim petition with Pennsylvania's Worker's Compensation Bureau challenging that denial, and Defendant has not paid Plaintiff any worker's compensation benefits related to the alleged collision.
On June 8, 2009, Plaintiff was released to return to work. The same day, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment after determining that Plaintiff violated Defendant's policies requiring prompt reporting of work-related injuries and after concluding that Plaintiff had lied about the accident during the course of the internal investigation. Defendant reached the latter conclusion in part because Plaintiff's account of the incident was not corroborated by Ms. Sierra, Plaintiff could produce no other witnesses to corroborate his version of the story, Ms. Sierra's story remained consistent throughout the internal investigation, and Plaintiff's account of the incident allegedly changed several times during the course of the investigation.
On February 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County alleging that Defendant terminated his employment in retaliation for reporting the work-related injury in pursuit of his workers' compensation claim. Defendant removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction on March 31, 2010. On May 12, 2010, Defendant filed an Answer generally denying Plaintiff's allegations and asserting that it terminated Plaintiff's at-will employment for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons. On November 8, 2010, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13).1 On November 23, 2010,Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 15). On December 6, 2010, Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 17).
Summary judgment is appropriate where the movant establishes that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Levy v. Sterling Holding Co., LLC, 544 F.3d 493, 501 (3d Cir. 2008). The threshold inquiry is whether there are "any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (). See also Dee v. Borough of Dunmore, 549 F.3d 225, 229 (3d Cir. 2008). The moving party must show that if the evidentiary material of record were reduced to admissible evidence in court, it would be insufficient to permit the non-moving party to carry its burden of proof. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 327 (1986).
Once the movant has carried its burden under Rule 56, "its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). Under Rule 56(e), the opponent must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial and may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings. See Martin v. Godwin, 499 F.3d 290, 295 (3d Cir. 2007). If the opposing party does not so respond, summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against that party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). At the summary judgment stage, the court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determinethe truth of the matter, but rather to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249; Jiminez v. All American Rathskeller, Inc., 503 F.3d 247, 253 (3d Cir. 2007). In doing so, the court must construe the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587; Horsehead Indus., Inc. v. Paramount Commc'ns, Inc., 258 F.3d 132, 140 (3d Cir. 2001). The court must award summary judgment on all claims unless the non-movant shows through affidavits or admissible evidence that an issue of material fact remains. See, e.g., Love v. Rancocas Hosp., 270 F. Supp. 2d 576, 579 (D.N.J. 2003); Koch Materials Co. v. Shore Slurry Seal, Inc., 205 F. Supp. 2d 324, 330 (D.N.J. 2002).
Defendant now moves this Court to grant summary judgment in its favor. The only issue remaining before the Court is whether a terminated employee may assert a cause of action under Pennsylvania common law or worker's compensation retaliation if the employee reports a work-related injury, but does not file a claim petition and the employer did not pay worker's compensation benefits related to the employee's report.2
As this case appears before this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the Court is "bound to follow the substantive law of the forum state as expressed by its highest court." Burns v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 757 F. Supp. 518, 521 (E.D. Pa.1991). Because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not directly addressed this issue, this Court is tasked with " 'predict[ing] theposition which that court would take in resolving this dispute.' " Id. In making this decision, "the well-reasoned decisions of intermediate state appellate courts are entitled to greater weight than those of lower state courts." Id. For the reasons discussed below, the Court predicts that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would find that a cause of action does exist.
In Shick v. Shirey, 716 A.2d 1231, 1238 (Pa. 1998), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a "cause of action exists under Pennsylvania law for wrongful discharge of an employee who files a claim for workers' compensation benefits." Although the Pennsylvania courts have yet to enumerate the elements of this cause of action, several federal district courts in Pennsylvania have analogized this cause of action to a retaliatory discharge claim under Title VII. See Landmesser v. United Air Lines, Inc., 102 F. Supp. 2d 273, 277-78 (E.D. Pa. 2000). Thus, to state a cause of action for workers compensation retaliation, an employee must establish that (1) he engaged in protected activity; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action either after or contemporaneous with the protected activity; and (3) a causal connection exists between his protected activity and the employer's adverse action. See Shellenberger v. Summit Bancorp, Inc., 318 F.3d 183, 187 (3d Cir. 2003). If the employee is able to show these elements, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action. Id.. If the employer satisfies this...
To continue reading
Request your trial