Stephens v. Mgmt. FC

• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
• Writing for the Court: ROBERT C. CHAMBERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Docket Number: Civil Action 3:24-0698
• Decision Date: 27 October 2025
• Citation: Stephens v. Mgmt. FC, Civil Action 3:24-0698 (S.D. W.Va. Oct 27, 2025)
• Parties: KELLY STEPHENS, Plaintiff, v. MANAGEMENT FC, LLC d/b/a FLAGSHIP COMMUNITIES, Defendant.
• topic: Employment Law,Civil Procedure,Workers Compensation

1

KELLY STEPHENS, Plaintiff, v. MANAGEMENT FC, LLC d/b/a FLAGSHIP COMMUNITIES, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:24-0698

United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division

October 27, 2025

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case arises from Defendant's decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendant terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for Plaintiff filing a claim for workers' compensation. See ECF 1, Compl. ¶ 21.

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 32). For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Motion.

BACKGROUND

Defendant employed Plaintiff as the property manager of Blue Spruce one of Defendant's mobile-home communities. See ECF 32-1 (“Chambers Dep.”) at 19-20.

Plaintiff's supervisor, Kayla Chambers, testified that, on July 11, 2024 she called District Manager Ben Winkler because she was unsatisfied with Plaintiff's job performance.^[1] See id. at 15, 30. Mr. Winkler told Ms. Chambers to create a written disciplinary warning to give to Plaintiff. See id. Ms. Chambers said she gave the written warning to Plaintiff that same day. See id. Plaintiff however, testified that she did not receive the warning until July 23. See ECF 32-4 (“Stephens Dep.”) at 98-99. Also, while Ms. Chambers testified that she signed the warning on July 11, see Chambers Dep. at 36, the warning document produced in discovery does not bear her signature, see ECF 32-5 (“Written Warning”) at 2.

Plaintiff injured her ankle at work on July 15. See id. at 84. On July 23, Plaintiff was unable to put pressure on her injured ankle and told Ms. Chambers that she was going to the doctor. See id. at 93, 95. The doctor gave Plaintiff a note stating that Plaintiff was “off work” until July 29. See ECF 32-7.

Ms Chambers testified that she helped Plaintiff file a workers' compensation claim and gave Plaintiff “all of the information she needed ....” Chambers Dep. 78-79. Plaintiff said she gave this information to the intake nurse at the doctor's office. See Stephens Dep. 109-10. When counsel asked Plaintiff if she “ever receive[d] any benefits, any payments, or anything under Workers' Compensation,” Plaintiff said she had not. Id. at 110.

After Ms. Chambers informed Mr. Winkler that Plaintiff was going to the doctor, Mr. Winkler asked Ms. Chambers to get Plaintiff to sign the disciplinary warning. See id. at 83-84. Mr. Winkler was unable to explain why he did so immediately after he learned that Plaintiff was seeking workers' compensation. See ECF 32-3 at 71-72.

Ms. Chambers then told Plaintiff that she was going to send Plaintiff “a write up that [she] needed [Plaintiff] to sign ” ECF 34-2 at 1. Plaintiff responded by asking “what is this for?” Id. Ms. Chambers explained that it was related to certain deficiencies in Plaintiff's job performance. See id. Plaintiff agreed to sign the warning. See id. at 2.

The written warning identified five issues with Plaintiff's work performance. See Written Warning 1. The first is “Consistently failed to follow directions given by your supervisors even after giving proper instructions.” Id. According to Ms. Chambers, this referred to “inputting payments, invoices and documents into the system.” Chambers Dep. 45. Ms. Chambers testified that, while Plaintiff was on vacation, another employee of Defendant discovered tenants' payments sitting on Plaintiff's desk that had not been “inputted.” Id. at 46-48. Ms. Chambers said she did not know whether the payments were made while Plaintiff was on vacation. See id. at 50. Ms. Chambers also testified that she had to correct payments that Plaintiff entered incorrectly. See id.

The second issue is “Has not kept your supervisors informed of important issues occurring in your community in a timely manner.” Written Warning 1. Ms. Chambers said she did not know what this was referencing. See Chambers Dep. 54.

The third issue is “Despite being advised to maintain and clean the office space, the area remained in disarray during the initial visit and follow up from management.” Written Warning 1. Ms. Chambers testified that she visited Blue Spruce on June 27 and observed dead maggots and flies on the floor of Plaintiff's office. See Chambers Dep. 94-95. Plaintiff denied seeing maggots in the office. See Stephens Dep. 180-81. She testified that it was maintenance's responsibility to clean and organize the office and sweep the floors. See id. at 102-03, 131-32. Ms. Chambers acknowledged that Defendant did not employ a maintenance person during most of Plaintiff's tenure. See Chambers Dep. 23, 109.

Ms. Chambers also observed “boxes in front of the front door” and maintenance supplies where they were not supposed to be. Id. at 98-99. Plaintiff testified that it was maintenance who placed the boxes and equipment. See id. at 129-30. She also explained that there was nowhere else to put the equipment. See id. at 130.

The fourth issue is “Has been observed on camera multiple times throughout the day smoking and using your personal phone during office hours.” Written Warning 1. Ms. Chambers originally testified that she did not have access to the cameras at Blue Spruce until July 29. See Chambers Dep. 61. When asked how she disciplined Plaintiff for what she saw on the cameras if she did not have access to their footage, Ms. Chambers changed her testimony and said she gained access at the beginning of July. See id. at 63-64. Plaintiff testified that no one ever told her that she could not take smoke breaks. See Stephens Dep. 104.

The fifth issue is “Has exceeded allotted weekly hours without authorization having already received a verbal warning.” Ms. Chambers testified that, on June 27, she told Plaintiff not to work overtime without approval. See Chambers Dep. 55. Ms. Chambers said she did not know whether Plaintiff worked overtime without approval thereafter. See id.

According to the written warning, Plaintiff had been “verbally warned” about the problems with her performance on June 27. Written Warning 1. Plaintiff said she did not recall receiving a verbal warning on June 27 or on any other date. See Stephens Dep. 99-100. Ms. Chambers explained that she did not tell Plaintiff that the conversation was a warning-that “[i]t was just me saying, hey, we need to get this cleaned.” Chambers Dep. 109.

Ms. Chambers visited Blue Spruce while Plaintiff was on medical leave. Chambers Dep. at 87. She said she found “checks on the desk that were not inputted” and files that had not been filed. Id. at 88, 104. She took pictures of the desk and the inside of its drawers. See id. at 101; see also ECF No. 32-10. She also testified that “[t]he park [was] not being managed”-that there were “[l]ots of violations that were needed to be put out that were not put out.” Chambers Dep. 88.

According to Plaintiff, some of the files on the desk were “in the process of being worked on.” Stephens Dep. 121. She said the desk clutter was also attributable to a lack of storage space. See id. at 119-20. In addition, Plaintiff asserted that the pictures Ms. Chambers took did not reflect the state of Plaintiff's desk when Plaintiff started her medical leave. See id. at 117.

On July 29-the day Plaintiff returned to work-Ms. Chambers informed Plaintiff that she was being terminated. Stephens Dep. 112. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff was terminated for the reasons described in the written warning, and because “Plaintiff was rude[,] . . . did not greet clients appropriately, did not generate or provide receipts to clients, and slept during work hours.” ECF 32-8 at 5.

Ms. Chambers explained that the rudeness and failure to appropriately greet clients refers to instances in which residents would come to deliver rent checks, and Plaintiff would have them put the checks in a collection box instead of taking the checks from the residents directly. See Chambers Dep. 118.

Despite Defendant's assertion that sleeping on the job was a basis for Plaintiff's termination, Ms. Chambers testified that she “didn't think it was relevant at the time of the writeup.” Id. at 120. She could not explain why the sleeping was a basis for Plaintiff's termination but not “relevant” when she created the written warning. See id.

Hank Larkins, Defendant's Human Resources Director, testified that Defendant has a “progressive discipline” system. ECF 32-2 at 10-11. He explained that, before an employee is terminated, they are given a verbal warning, a written warning, and, sometimes, a final written warning. See id. at 11, 17-18.

LEGAL STANDARD

A “court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “A dispute is ‘genuine' if the evidence presented would allow a reasonable factfinder to find for the nonmovant. A fact is ‘material' if it may influence the outcome of the suit under governing law.” Bhattacharya v. Murray, 93 F.4th 675, 686 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal citations omitted). In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, “a court must view all facts, and reasonable inferences taken therefrom, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party ....”

Id.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff claims that her termination violated W.Va. Code § 23-5A-1. See Compl. ¶ 22. Section 23-5A-1 provides that “[n]o employer shall discriminate in any manner against any of his present or former employees because of such present or former employee's receipt of or attempt to receive” workers' compensation benefits. To make a prima facie case under this section, an employee must demonstrate that “(1) an on-the-job injury was sustained; (2) proceedings were instituted under the...