Taylor v. Ohio Dep't Of Jobs
| Decision Date | 25 January 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2008-05974 |
| Citation | 2011 Ohio 881 |
| Parties | JOY TAYLOR, Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF JOBS AND FAMILY SERVICES, Defendant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Claims |
Magistrate Lewis F. Pettigrew
MAGISTRATE DECISION
{¶1} Plaintiff brought this action alleging interference with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), as well as disability discrimination under R.C. 4112.02, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.1 The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of liability.
{¶2} On January 7, 2008, plaintiff began working as an "account clerk 2" in defendant's Bureau of Accounting. Plaintiff sought and obtained the position after working as a "data technician" in another of defendant's bureaus since 2001. Plaintiff stated that she was under a great deal of stress when she began serving in the new position inasmuch as her husband was in Iraq on a military deployment, and his absence increased her responsibilities to their family and to two rental properties which they owned. Plaintiff testified that this stress was compounded by what proved to be adifficult transition into her new role with defendant. In particular, plaintiff stated that she did not get along well with the individual who was assigned to train her, Emily Noble, and that her supervisor, Tanya Carter, made "hostile" and unfair criticisms of her.
{¶3} Plaintiff testified that much of Carter's criticism centered upon telephone calls between plaintiff and her husband. Indeed, Carter testified that she met with plaintiff on January 10, 2008, after she observed plaintiff making several personal calls during her first week on the job. According to Carter, plaintiff explained that some of the calls were from her husband, who was able to call from Iraq only between 9:00 a.m. and noon, Eastern Standard Time. Carter stated that she informed plaintiff that she could use her "break time" or lunch to take personal calls, but that such calls were not permitted during work time. Carter testified that she provided plaintiff with a copy of defendant's telephone usage policy during this meeting.
{¶4} Carter further testified that on January 15, 2008, she observed plaintiff speaking in a "harsh" and "rude" tone to Noble. Carter stated that when she approached plaintiff and asked if there was a problem, plaintiff waved her off and said to leave her alone. Carter testified that she decided to walk away and address the matter later.
{¶5} On January 16, 2008, Carter conducted a "counseling session" with plaintiff and issued plaintiff a "counseling memo" in which Carter reprimanded plaintiff for her "rude and discourteous" behavior on the preceding day. (Defendant's Exhibit K.) In the memo, Carter also expressed concern that plaintiff continued to make excessive personal telephone calls even after Carter had spoken to her about this on January 10, 2008. Also during the counseling session, Carter issued plaintiff another memo to inform her that, because her sick leave balance had fallen below 16 hours, defendant's policy mandated that she provide verification from a physician for any future requests for sick leave until she accrued a balance of more than 16 hours. (Defendant's Exhibit J.) {¶6} Carter testified that inasmuch as she found plaintiff's behavior to be "volatile" at times, she held the January 16, 2008 counseling session in the office of a supervisor, Renee Gossett, and asked Gossett to wait outside and intervene if plaintiff "got out of hand." Carter stated that plaintiff indeed raised her voice during the session and that Gossett consequently intervened.
{¶7} In contrast, plaintiff stated that she remained calm during the counseling session, and that Carter "yelled" at her and pointed a finger in her face. Plaintiff also testified that Gossett "smirked" at Carter upon entering the room which caused plaintiff to believe that she was "being set up." Plaintiff further testified that she found Carter's criticism of her during the session to be unwarranted.
{¶8} On January 31, 2008, another meeting was held between plaintiff, Carter, and Robin Harris, who was Carter's supervisor. Carter testified that she arranged the meeting to review defendant's "performance expectations" of plaintiff, and both Carter and plaintiff testified that the meeting was not disciplinary in nature.
{¶9} Plaintiff testified that as a result of stress from the foregoing issues at work, as well as the stress in her personal life, she contacted defendant's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) around the end of January 2008. Plaintiff stated that she spoke with an EAP counselor and discussed the problems at work, her husband's deployment, and the difficulty in managing both her own household and her rental properties. Plaintiff stated that as a result of her discussions with the EAP counselor, she decided to request leave under the FMLA in order "to get myself together."
{¶10} On February 12, 2008, plaintiff met with Antoinette Franklin (then known as Antoinette Adams), who was a "personnel coordinator 2" and "assistant FMLA coordinator" for defendant. Plaintiff and Franklin both testified that plaintiff inquired about the process for requesting FMLA leave, and that Franklin consequently issued plaintiff a "certification" form to be completed by plaintiff and her physician, as well as an instructional cover letter. (Plaintiff's Exhibits 2, 3; Defendant's Exhibits G, H.) {¶11} Plaintiff testified that after obtaining the paperwork from Franklin, she visited her physician during her lunch break. According to plaintiff, her physician diagnosed her with anxiety and depression and completed the certification form, wherein he stated that plaintiff was being prescribed both an antidepressant and "weekly counseling," and that "[plaintiff] will be off 1-2 days/week for 4-12 weeks for treatment." (Plaintiff's Exhibit 3; Defendant's Exhibit H.)
{¶12} After the appointment, plaintiff returned to the office and delivered the certification form to Franklin. However, Franklin testified that upon review of the certification form, she determined that it did not detail plaintiff's treatment schedule with sufficient clarity for defendant to know when plaintiff would be absent from work. Specifically, Franklin stated that the certification needed at least to indicate which days of the week that plaintiff planned to be absent for treatment and that, while plaintiff told her that the days would be Thursdays and Fridays, this information needed to be confirmed by plaintiff's physician.
{¶13} Franklin testified that she telephoned plaintiff that afternoon and told her that defendant could not process her request for FMLA leave until her physician provided the additional information. In contrast, plaintiff testified that Franklin did not ask for more information, but instead told her that she could only receive one to two hours of leave per week rather than the requested one to two days per week. Plaintiff stated that as a result of this conversation with Franklin, and inasmuch as one to two hours per week was not sufficient, she considered her request for leave to have been denied.
{¶14} Plaintiff stated that her level of stress at the time was such that she could not carry out her responsibilities at work without the requested leave. According to plaintiff, the stress prevented her from sleeping and caused her to cry and break out in hives. On February 14, 2008, plaintiff submitted a written resignation to Carter, effective February 28, 2008. (Defendant's Exhibit C.) Plaintiff testified that she had an offer ofemployment at that time, pending security clearance, from the United States Department of Defense.
{¶15} Later on February 14, 2008, Carter wrote plaintiff a letter to acknowledge her resignation and confirm that her last day of work would be February 28, 2008. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5; Defendant's Exhibit M.) Carter testified that plaintiff's resignation came as a surprise to her, given that plaintiff had performed her job well and corrected the behaviors that were problematic earlier in her tenure.
{¶16} Plaintiff stated that in spite of her resignation, she decided to pursue a union grievance concerning her request for FMLA leave because she "wanted it to be known" that her request had been denied. Plaintiff testified that in order to take such action, she contacted Franklin on or about February 25, 2008, and requested a letter formally denying her request for FMLA leave, but that Franklin told her the request had not been denied and could not be processed until plaintiff's physician provided a treatment schedule. Franklin issued plaintiff a letter on February 25, 2008, which reiterated the need for additional information and stated that such information had been requested of plaintiff on February 12, 2008. (Defendant's Exhibit I.)
{¶17} On February 26, 2008, plaintiff filed a grievance concerning her request for FMLA leave. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 4; Defendant's Exhibit D.) Also on that day, plaintiff filed another grievance in which she stated that "her supervisor has caused her undue stress which has resulted in her crying on a daily basis; breaking out in hives; being placed on an anti-depressant; loss of sleep; and not having the ability to grasp her job to her full potential, in which the end result has been submitting her resignation to [defendant]." (Defendant's Exhibit E.) On March 6, 2008, the union withdrew the grievance that concerned plaintiff's request for FMLA leave. (Defendant's Exhibit F.) On March 1, 2008, Carter "denied" the other grievance, and there is no evidence that the grievance was pursued any further. (Defendant's Exhibit O.)
{¶18} On May 9, 2008, plaintiff filed her complaint in the instant case, alleging that defendant interfered with her rights under the FMLA, and that as a result ofdefendant's alleged failure to...
To continue reading
Request your trial