Snyder v. U.S. Bank
| Decision Date | 28 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:20-cv-392 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
| Parties | MARK SNYDER, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant.[1] |
MARK SNYDER, Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant.[1]
No. 1:20-cv-392
United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
March 28, 2022
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 16) IN PART AND REMANDING THE CASE TO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Timothy S. Black United States District Judge.
This civil action is before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 16) and the parties' responsive memoranda (Docs. 23 and 24).
I. BACKGROUND[2]
A. Undisputed facts
Plaintiff Mark Snyder worked for Defendant U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) from March 2002 until sometime in 2018 or early January 2019. (Deposition of Mark Snyder, “Snyder Dep, ” Doc. 13 at 43). Defendant U.S. Bank is a banking association formed in accordance with the National Bank Act. (Declaration of
Linda Bidon Declaration, “Bidon Decl., ” Doc. 16-2, at ¶3). In 2016, Snyder was promoted to a Finance Director 2 position. (Snyder Dep. at 47, 50-51). In that role, he primarily managed a joint venture between U.S. Bank and The Kroger Company (“Kroger”), a large grocer, related to Kroger-branded credit cards. (Id.).
In 2017, Snyder was arrested and charged with aggravated menacing. (Id. at 28). The incident involved Snyder pointing, but not firing, a gun. (Id.). He later pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted confinement. (Id. at 28; see also Doc. 13-1 at PageID## 276-277). Because of the arrest, Snyder may have missed some work. (Snyder Dep. at 31). Snyder did not tell U.S. Bank about the arrest or the plea. (Id.). Because of the terms of his probation, Snyder missed a board meeting in Toronto, perhaps telling his employer he had a “personal situation.” (Id. at 31-32). Johnnie Carroll, Snyder's supervisor, raised the issue of the missed meeting with Snyder. (Id. at 32). Around that time, Snyder was again arrested-this time for operating a vehicle under the influence, a charge to which he would plead guilty. (Id. at 35-36). Snyder did not report this arrest to U.S. Bank. (Id. at 37).
Seemingly on October 13, 2017, Snyder requested leave pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act. (See Snyder Dep., Exhibit 21, Doc. 13-2 at PageID# 348). He requested it retroactively to October 11, 2017. (Id.). The paperwork memorializing that the leave request was approved lists only a “health condition” as the reason for the leave. (Id.). On October 23, 2017, Snyder had a stroke. (Snyder Dep. at 58-60). Snyder cannot say what condition, other than the impairments caused by the stroke, would have entitled
him to FMLA leave. (Id. at 67-68). Snyder also cannot say why his leave request, perhaps submitted with the help of his medical providers, asks for leave retroactive to October 11, 2017, almost two weeks before the stroke.[3] (Id. at 68).
In January 2018, Snyder returned from his FMLA leave. (Id. at 71). On his first day back, Snyder received a “very positive” performance evaluation for his work in 2017. (Id. at 89-90). Snyder also received a bonus and a raise. (Id.). Snyder informed Carroll that he was still undergoing physical and speech therapy. (Carroll Dep. at 65). Snyder, who had usually worked at U.S. Bank's downtown Cincinnati office, requested to work from an office closer to Snyder's home. (Id. at 72-73). Carroll granted the request, at least for a period of two weeks. (Id.).
When Snyder's return to the downtown office was imminent, Brian Henson, one of Snyder's reports, told Carroll that he (Henson) had safety concerns about Snyder. (Carroll Dep. at 53-54). Henson told Carroll, who was previously unaware, about Snyder's gun-related criminal case. (Declaration of Johnnie Carroll, “Carroll Decl., ” Doc. 16-3, at ¶6). Carroll notified Stacey McCarty in HR. (Carroll Dep. at 55). McCarty said Snyder could return to work at the downtown office, although she noted, to Carroll, that Snyder had been uncooperative during her investigation. (Carroll Dep. 124-126).
More complaints about Snyder followed. (Snyder Dep. at 121). A U.S. Bank
branch manager complained to Carroll about an interaction with Snyder.[4] (Id.). A Kroger employee complained that Snyder had approached her in a rude fashion and criticized the management of her unit at Kroger. (Snyder Dep., Ex. 28, Docs. 13-2). Carroll raised some of these complaints with Snyder. (Snyder Dep., Exs. 16, 26, 27, and 28, Docs. 13-1 and 13-2). Carroll also told Snyder about his own observations of Snyder's combative tone with colleagues. (Snyder Dep. at 98).
On May 3, 2018, Carroll gave Snyder a written warning letter. (Snyder Dep., Ex. 20, Doc. 13-2, PageID## 369-372). The warning letter noted several shortcomings of Snyder's: failure to have alternative work schedules approved; rudeness and disrespect toward Carroll; lying about the cause of absences; missed meetings; missed deadlines; and the above-referenced run-ins with the U.S. Bank branch manager and the Kroger employee. (Id.).[5] The letter goes on to state that “failure to meet the expectations outlined may result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination of your employment.” (Snyder Dep., Ex. 30, Doc. 13-2, PageID# 369-373).
Later in May 2018, Snyder's assistant, Marcia Kleinhenz, started to record Snyder's comings and goings while Carroll was away. (Deposition of Marcia Kleinhenz,
“Kleinhenz Dep., ” Doc. 14, at 43, 45). Kleinhenz was not instructed to do so. (Id. at 45). Kleinhenz gave Carroll her notes regarding Snyder's absences from the office. (Carroll Dep. 116).
In an email sent on June 4, 2018, Carroll asked Snyder to comment on Kleinhenz's notes related to Snyder's apparent absences from work. (Snyder Dep., Ex. 32, Doc. 13-2, PageID# 374). Snyder went to address Kleinhenz directly. (Kleinhenz Dep. at 75). The tenor of this Kleinhenz-Snyder interaction is disputed but, indisputably, the interaction ended with Kleinhenz asking Snyder to walk away. (Id. at 76). Afterward, Kleinhenz sent an email to Carroll regarding the interaction. (Kleinhenz Dep., Ex. 2, Doc. 14-1, at PageID# 473).
The same evening, June 4, Carroll wrote to McCarty from HR, stating in relevant part, “I no longer think Mark's situation is redeemable and feel I need to act.” (Carroll Dep., Ex. 17, Doc. 15-1, PageID# 576). Carroll asked for “next steps.” (Id.).
Meanwhile, the same evening, Snyder suffered a nervous breakdown at a casino. (Snyder Dep. at 151). Snyder ended up at the hospital. (Id.). The next day, June 5, 2018, either Snyder or someone on behalf of Snyder requested medical leave. (Id. at 159-160). That leave was granted. (Id. at 60).
On June 22, 2018, McCarty from U.S. Bank's HR department called Snyder and told him he would be terminated, but that he could keep receiving the medical leave for which he was eligible. (Carroll Decl. at ¶12). Carroll reiterated those points by letter dated June 27, 2018-Snyder would be fired when his leave period was up. (Snyder
Dep., Ex. 39, Doc. 13-2, at PageID# 403).
Snyder has testified that he could do his job up until his nervous breakdown. (Id. at 164). Since being terminated, Snyder has not found new work. (Id. at 11, 210). His doctor has not released him to do so. (Id.).
In February 2019, Snyder filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy. (Snyder Dep., Ex. 3, Doc. 13-1, at PageID# 155). It seems that the petition itself declares Snyder “may have an ADA” claim against an employer, but he does not mention any FMLA or Ohio-state law claims against U.S. Bank in his scheduled of assets, which was amended many times. (Snyder Dep. at 19). In June 2019, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed Snyder's plan. (Snyder Dep., Ex. 7, Doc. 13-1, at PageID# 266).
B. Plaintiff's Proposed Disputed Facts
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff Snyder's proposed disputed facts (Doc. 23-2) and identified the following as the relevant factual disputes:
1. Whether U.S. Bank accommodated Snyder after his stroke and whether he was disabled. After his stroke, Snyder received the accommodations mentioned by U.S. Bank-working from a new office, and so forth-but, importantly, Snyder says those accommodations only lasted two weeks. (Snyder Dep. 73-74). Later, Snyder requested to work from home and was denied. (Id. at 84). Additionally, Snyder states that...
To continue reading
Request your trial