Trego v. Bullitt Cnty. Fiscal Court
| Decision Date | 29 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 3:20-CV-00272-CRS |
| Parties | ASHLEY TREGO PLAINTIFF v. BULLITT COUNTY FISCAL COURT, et al. DEFENDANTS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky |
This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendants Bullitt County Fiscal Court (“BCFC”), Angie Greenup (“Greenup”), David Nemes (“Nemes”), and Lisa Craddock (“Craddock”) (collectively “Defendants”) for summary judgment on all claims (DN 37) and the motion of Plaintiff Ashley Trego (“Trego”) for partial summary judgment (DN 40). Both motions seek relief pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The parties have each responded and replied accordingly (DNs 48 and 53; DNs 45 and 51) and both matters are ripe for adjudication.
BCFC is a legislative body of Bullitt County, Kentucky and, pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. Chapter 67, “has the authority to hire persons to perform work incidental and necessary for the operation and execution of certain duties and organizations including the Bullitt County Animal Shelter.” DN 1-2 PageID# 9. Trego was hired by BCFC in the summer of 2017 to work as a parttime Animal Care Attendant at the Bullitt County Animal Shelter (“the Animal Shelter”). Id. At that time, Greenup was the Director of the Animal Shelter, Nemes was the Assistant Director of the Animal Shelter, and Craddock was the Deputy Judge-Executive of the BCFC. Id.
Because she suffers from a number of medical ailments, including shortness of breath and severe back pain, Trego has received social security disability benefits since December 2016. DN 40-3, PageID# 859-67. Prior to being hired as an Animal Care Attendant, Trego called the Social Security office on speakerphone with Greenup present so that they could inquire as to how many hours Trego could work and how much pay she could receive without losing her benefits. See Trego Depo., DN 37-3, PageID# 274. Thus, Defendants were aware that Trego was disabled. However, it is unclear as to whether Defendants knew the extent of Trego's work limitations and what, if any, accommodations were put in place due to these limitations.
At no time during her employment at the Animal Shelter did Trego submit written requests for any accommodations. DN 37-3, PageID# 280. Trego testified that she made “verbal” arrangements with Greenup and Craddock for accommodations regarding her lifting restrictions and breathing issues. DN 46-1, PageID# 1041-44, 1046. She also claims that she had an unwritten agreement to be able to park close to the cat trailer where she worked. Id., PageID# 1077-80. Trego purports that it was common knowledge among her co-workers at the Animal Shelter that she had medical problems, although not everyone knew the extent of her issues. Id., PageID# 1070-71.
Trego claims that Greenup and Craddock had a comprehensive understanding of her health problems. DN 46-1, PageID# 1072. Prior to her paid position as an Animal Care Attendant, Trego had volunteered at the Animal Shelter and knew Greenup. Trego Depo., DN 46-1, PageID# 1040. Because of her time spent as a volunteer, Trego claims that Greenup was aware that she had “respiratory issues,” “back issues,” lupus, and seizures, and that she was, overall, “in bad health.” Id., PageID# 1040-41. She maintains that, because Greenup knew about these conditions prior to her hiring, certain restrictions were factored into the type of duties Trego could perform and the hours she could work. See id., PageID# 1072 ( that she was hired for “light-duty stuff” and for minimal hours because Greenup knew her medical situation).
Greenup acknowledged that she knew that Trego had “some health issues” when she was hired, and that Trego was provided “some accommodations” for her job. Greenup Depo., DN 374, PageID# 298. Nemes testified that when he was hired as Assistant Director in December 2017, he “understood that [Trego] was restricted to working 10 hours a week due to disability” and “that she was not permitted to lift heavy objects.” Nemes Depo., DN 37-27, PageID# 607, 611. While Craddock testified that she knew of Trego's health issues “in the very beginning before she was hired,” Craddock also stated that no special accommodations were made for Trego when she was hired because Trego “made it clear that . . . it was not an issue.” Craddock Depo., DN 37-5, PageID# 386.
Trego alleges that “around October 2017,” she began experiencing discrimination at work when Defendants “create[ed] a hostile work environment, refus[ed] to provide reasonable accommodations, and retract[ed] certain reasonable accommodations” that had previously been provided. DN 1-2, PageID# 11. Specifically, Trego claims that Greenup and Nemes “verbally harassed, abused, and questioned [Trego] about her disability.” Id. Trego met with Craddock in December 2017 when she says the harassment became “unbearable” and claims that after this meeting the harassment became even worse. Id., PageID# 12. In July 2018, Trego took leave for a medical procedure, after which she alleges the offending behavior escalated further. Id.
A meeting between Trego, Craddock, Nemes, and Greenup was eventually held on August 23, 2018, during which Trego, again, expressed her concerns about workplace harassment and discrimination. Id., PageID# 13. At this meeting, Trego received multiple disciplinary writeups for allegedly violating various BCFC policies by performing below standards, leaving work early without permission, and posting “a derogatory comment” about the Animal Shelter on social media. DN 1-2, PageID# 13; DNs 37-7, 37-10, and 37-21. Most relevant to the present action, however, appears to be the discipline Trego received for her alleged conduct after taking medical leave in early July 2018. DN 37-13.
Trego's medical leave began on July 9 and she was originally supposed to return to work on July 16. DN 37-14, PageID# 489-92. She was granted two extensions to her leave of absence, pushing her return-to-work date out to August 17. See DN 37-1, PageID# 1003; DN 40-3, PageID# 878, 894. On August 6, the BCFC sent Trego a letter informing Trego that prior approval from the Department Executive and County Judge/Executive was required for a medical leave of absence of more than thirty days. DN 40-3, PageID# 895. The letter also indicated that Trego needed to have her healthcare provider complete a “Healthcare Provider Employee Capabilities Assessment” (“HCAF”) and an “Authorization for Absence” and that she should return these documents to the Bullitt County Animal Control (“BCAC”) management “no later than one week from the date of receipt.” Id. The USPS tracking information for this letter indicates that it was delivered on August 8, 2018 (DN 37-16, PageID# 503), making the deadline for submitting the requested documents August 15, 2018.
On August 14, Trego contacted Greenup asking for more time to complete the required documentation and Trego was granted a one-week extension, making the new deadline for submission the close of business on August 21. DN 37-26, PageID# 558. On August 15, Trego emailed BCAC management and the office of the County Judge/Executive partial copies of her medical records and indicated that she would “try to” have the HCAF submitted by August 21. Id., PageID# 559-63. Nemes responded, informing Trego that “the information provided was insufficient” and reminded Trego that she would not be permitted to return to work until she submitted the HCAF. Id., PageID# 564. Trego informed management at BCAC on August 20 that she would not have the required documentation ready for submission until August 22-one day after it was due. Id., PageID# 591. She was not granted an extension and she failed to provide the documentation by the close of business on August 21. Id. For this infraction, Trego received the disciplinary action of “counseling/warning” during the August 23 meeting. DN 37-13, PageID# 487.
Trego was scheduled to return to work on August 28, 2018. DN 37-26, PageID# 590. That day, BCAC management received a note from Trego's cardiologist stating that Trego would be wearing a heart monitor for 30 days, beginning August 27, but did not mention if Trego could work without restrictions. DN 37-19, PageID# 531. Nemes sent Trego an email on August 29 requesting her to have her physician “send a letter releasing you to work ASAP” and “to specify if this release to work is with or without restrictions.” DN 37-17, PageID# 523. Nemes informed Trego that if the release was not received “before her next scheduled shift,” the county Judge/Executive would set a “reasonable deadline for it's [sic] submission.” Id. On September 5, Nemes informed Trego that the deadline for submission was set for September 12, 2018. DN 3717, PageID# 523-24. Trego did not submit the requested release by September 12, so on September 13 Trego was notified that she was suspended from work for the dates of September 18, 20, and 25. DN 37-23, PageID# 536. Because Trego had still not submitted the release as of September 27, she was not allowed to report for work on that day and was marked with an unexcused absence. DN 1-2, PageID# 15. Trego submitted a note from Dr. Rosenberg Reyes dated September 28 recommending that she be excused from work from September 27 through October 1, 2018. DN 40-3, PageID# 922. On October 1, Trego submitted the requested medical release regarding the heart monitor. Id., PageID# 923.
Nemes testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial