Suchanek v. Univ. of Ky.
| Decision Date | 25 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3: 10-19-DCR |
| Parties | JEANNE SUCHANEK, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky |
This matter is pending for consideration of the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. [Record No. 55] For the following reasons, the defendants' motion will be granted.
Jeanne Suchanek worked at the University of Kentucky from October 1998 until she resigned on April 25, 2009. During that time, she was employed as the Director of Development for the College of Fine Arts. In her position as Director, Suchanek was under the supervision of the Dean of the College of Fine Arts, Robert Shay. At its essence, this case arises out of the deteriorating relationship between Shay and Suchanek, which she alleges led to her resignation. Suchanek argues that Shay's treatment of her resulted from disability discrimination and retaliation, while Shay claims that he dealt with Suchanek fairly, but she simply failed to meet the expectations of a senior development officer at the University.
In 2005, Suchanek was diagnosed with breast cancer. When Suchanek learned of her diagnosis, she sent an e-mail to her department and informed her co-workers of her condition.She informed them that she would be taking time off for surgery, but would be available by phone and e-mail. Suchanek requested, and was given, eight days off to undergo a lumpectomy. Following surgery, Suchanek completed seven weeks of radiation and began a five-year hormone treatment plan. Suchanek did not miss work for her radiation treatments; instead, she used her lunch breaks to attend medical appointments and receive treatment.
On the leave form for her surgery, Suchanek's absence was designated as temporary disability leave with pay. [Record No. 55-7] Suchanek now claims that she would have preferred the leave to be classified as FMLA leave. The University provided information to its employees regarding FMLA leave during new-employee orientation, in its staff handbook, and through its online listing of policies and procedures. The University also claims that it provided information regarding FMLA at a weekly staff meeting in April 2006. However, Suchanek claims she was not specifically informed of her FMLA rights at the time she requested leave.
Suchanek contends that, after returning to work, her doctor told her to "avoid bigger crowds" because of her weakened immune system. Suchanek also claims that she experienced other side effects resulting from her ongoing treatments, such as insomnia, persistent hot flashes, and fatigue. According to Suchanek, these limitations prevented her from performing her job in the same way she had prior to her diagnosis.
Substantial attention in this case is given to Suchanek's performance evaluations. Per University Policy, employees were evaluated by superiors on at least an annual basis. Yearly performance evaluations were completed in February and March for the prior year (i.e., the 2007 evaluations were completed in March 2008). On her 2005 evaluation, completed March 3, 2006,Suchanek received a score of 4.7 out of a possible 5 points. In regard to her cultivation of current and potential donors, Shay commented that Suchanek "[c]onsistently meets and/or exceeds expectations in this particularly." [Record No. 55-14, p. 2] Regarding her performance developing and implementing of solicitation strategies, Shay wrote, "Excellent strategist in more areas than just development." [Id., p. 1]
However, beginning with her 2006 evaluation, Suchanek's scores began to drop. On her initial 2006 evaluation, Suchanek was given a 2.9 out of 5. Shay wrote that Suchanek's "[q]uality of work in [the development of new strategies] ha[d] diminished significantly." [Record No. 55-12] Shay cited an "unwillingness to develop [her] portfolio" of donors and a "[p]oor attitude toward Central Development." [Id.] In response to Shay's evaluation, Suchanek wrote the following comment on her evaluation form:
I would like to explain the difference in this year's cultivation efforts and last year's efforts. Because of a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer in late 2005, I was advised by my doctor to limit my exposure to crowds because of my immune system. I did not participate in cultivation efforts as I should have and tried to be more active in coordinating the efforts of the Dean and Department Chairs. Because of my complete recovery, I anticipate a much more aggressive plan of action in 2007, including following the Dean's strategy of contacting current and potential donors throughout Kentucky.
[Record No. 55-16, p. 4] The parties dispute whether Suchanek, in this comment, was the first to mention her breast cancer in connection with her performance. Suchanek claims that she wrote the comment in response to a discussion with Shay before the draft evaluation was provided to her. However, after Suchanek added her comment, Shay updated her evaluation, and noted at one point that "Jeanne's work with donors this year did diminish because of herrecovery from breast cancer." [Id., p. 2] Along with his updated comments, Shay raised Suchanek's evaluation from a 2.9 to a 3.1.
Prior to the next year's evaluation, Suchanek spoke with the University's human resources department about how to dispute an evaluation. She was told to document her performance and complete a self-evaluation in preparation for her yearly evaluation. Also, in March 2008, Suchanek contacted Patty Bender, the University's Vice-President for Equal Opportunity, to voice her concerns that she was being discriminated against due to her breast cancer.
Before Suchanek's 2007 evaluation, Shay sent her an e-mail to inform her that he expected she would be disappointed with her ratings. Suchanek forwarded the e-mail to Bender, and the two exchanged e-mails regarding the process for lodging a discrimination complaint. [Record No. 55-21] When Suchanek eventually received the evaluation, Shay had given her a 2.05 rating. During this same time, Shay sent Suchanek a letter that described the University's tightening of its rating system in an attempt to "curb grade inflation." [Record No. 55-19]
A rating below three points meant Shay was required to place Suchanek on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Shay did so, and monitored Suchanek's progress at thirty, sixty, and ninety-day intervals. Suchanek completed the PIP, with positive feedback from Shay in November 2008, but her 2008 evaluation nevertheless resulted in a rating of 2.4. Suchanek claims that the job standards applied for her 2008 evaluation were different - and significantly more stringent - than the standards that had been previously applied. She was placed on another PIP.
Suchanek resigned from the University on April 24, 2009. However, she classifies her resignation as "involuntary." [Record No. 64, p. 11] On May 18, 2009, Suchanek began work for a new employer. She was named the Director of Stewardship and Development for Mary Queen of the Holy Rosary Parish with the Diocese of Lexington.
On April 2, 2010, Suchanek filed this action in Franklin Circuit Court against the University and Shay, in his individual and official capacities. The defendants timely removed the case to this Court. [Record No. 1]
Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party shows, using evidence in the record, "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); see (c)(1). In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the Court views all the facts and inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party must establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to each essential element of its case. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
Suchanek's Complaint contains seven counts: violation of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA); disability discrimination; disability harassment/hostile work environment; constructive discharge; retaliation; breach of implied contract; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. [Record No. 1-3] For each count, Suchanek has failed to raise a genuine issue of material factas to at least one element of a prima facie case. Therefore, each of her claims fails as a matter of law, and the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.
There are two avenues for recovery under the FMLA: (i) an "entitlement" or "interference" theory and (ii) a "retaliation" or "discrimination" theory. Hoge v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 384 F.3d 238, 244 (6th Cir. 2004). Suchanek alleges only an interference claim. [Record No. 64, p. 17 ()] A claim for FMLA interference arises under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1), which states that "[i]t shall be unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided" under the FMLA. To prevail on an interference claim, a plaintiff must prove:
Cavin v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 346 F.3d 713, 720 (6th Cir. 2003). The defendants have conceded that Suchanek was an eligible employee and that the University was an employer as defined by the FMLA. [See Record No. 55, p. 26] The Court thus begins its analysis with the third element.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial