Van Leer v. University Contracting Company LLC
| Decision Date | 09 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:20-cv-387 |
| Parties | AMBER VAN LEER, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY CONTRACTING COMPANY, LLC d/b/a UNIVERSITY MANOR, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Amber Van Leer worked as a licensed practical nurse for University Contracting Company, LLC, which does business as University Manor. During her employment, Ms. Van Leer suffered from chronic and pervasive eczema, which forced her to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. When that leave ended in October 2019, Ms. Van Leer did not show up to work her first scheduled shift, and University Manor terminated her employment.
Plaintiff sued, alleging her employer violated various anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation provisions of federal and State law and that it committed several employment-related torts. After removal and following discovery, University Manor now moves for summary judgment. (ECF No. 19.) On June 30, 2021, the Court held oral argument on the motion. For the reasons that follow, there is no dispute of material fact about Plaintiff's claims, and University Manor is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the motion.
Defendant University Contracting Company, LLC, operating as University Manor, staffs and runs a nursing facility that provides respite, short-term, long-term, and hospice care to its residents. Plaintiff Amber Van Leer worked for University Manor from 2014 until her termination in October 2019. The gravamen of her complaint relates to her return from leave which she took due to an eczema flare-up that directly preceded her termination. She alleges she was discriminated against because of her eczema and retaliated against for taking leave in the first place.
Ms. Van Leer began working for University Manor in 2014 as a State-tested nursing assistant, or STNA. (ECF No. 31-1, PageID #115.) In this role, Ms. Van Leer took “care of the patients or residents, ” including tasks related to hygiene, safety, cleanliness, and feeding, among other duties. (Id.) As an STNA, Ms. Van Leer did not work a normal schedule; rather, she worked on an “as-needed” basis. (Id., PageID #117.) She left for “a brief period” to complete nursing school, but rejoined University Manor thereafter. (Id. at PageID #115.)
In August 2016, University Manor promoted Ms. Van Leer to “nurse, ” as a licensed nurse practitioner, or LPN. (Id.) This promotion came with an increase in pay, hours, and responsibility. (Id., PageID #140.) As for Ms. Van Leer's new work schedule, University Manor published each schedule for the upcoming month in advance, usually toward the middle or end of the prior month. (Id., PageID #124.) For example, the schedule for October 2019 was published sometime around mid-September. The schedules were “printed out and put in a folder, ” and they were available to the nurses on each floor. (Id.) As a general matter, Ms. Van Leer remembered the calendars were “usually on the unit” and agreed that she “always” knew where to find it. (Id.) As for her specific schedule, Ms. Van Leer worked a two-week rotation, which required her to work alternating weekends. (Id.) A “W” on the schedule meant Ms. Van Leer was supposed to work, and a “slash” meant she was off. (Id., PageID #124-25.; see also, e.g., ECF No. 13-7, PageID #193-200 (2019 work schedules).) A “V” stood for vacation, meaning she was not scheduled to work because she requested the day off. (ECF No. 13-1, PageID #126.)
Ms. Van Leer also suffers from severe eczema, particularly on her hands. (Id., PageID #140.) During a flare-up, her skin becomes cracked and inflamed, her joints swell, and often these cracks produce open sores. (Id.) The openings themselves swell and itch, causing excruciating pain. (Id.) Sometimes these flare-ups result in Ms. Van Leer's hands becoming visibly bloody or covered with pus. (Id.) During these flare-ups, Ms. Van Leer's pain registers a ten on a scale from zero to ten, with ten being the most painful. (Id.) She stated that “anywhere she was affected” would become inflamed and that she suffers insatiable “itching from the inside” that is not remedied by any topical ointment. (Id.) Occasional flare-ups make it difficult for Ms. Van Leer to complete at least some of her job duties. (Id.)
Toward the end of September 2019, Ms. Van Leer's eczema flared up. (ECF No. 13-1, PageID #127.) The pain became unbearable, and she sought care from both her primary care physician and a dermatologist. (Id.; ECF No. 13-8, PageID #203.) Eventually Ms. Van Leer requested, and University Manor approved, leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, which began on September 28, 2019. (ECF No. 13-1, PageID #127.) When she went on FMLA leave, one of her supervisors, Darlene Rose, informed Ms. Van Leer that University Manor would hold her job open, but that it could not guarantee her the same schedule upon return. (Id., PageID #142.) At the time she went on leave, Ms. Van Leer was scheduled to work every Thursday, just as she had each previous month that year. (Id., PageID #126; ECF No. 13-7, PageID #201.)
Ms. Van Leer's leave ended a few weeks later. Her FMLA paperwork says her end date for her period of incapacity was October 17, 2019. (ECF No. 13-9, PageID #206.) A doctor's note dated September 30, 2019 states, (ECF No. 13-8, PageID #203.) A second note dated October 11, 2019, says, “AMBER VANLEER has been under my care from 9/26/2019 to 10/16/2019 and will be able to return to work on 10/17/19[.]” (ECF No. 13-10, PageID #208.) Ms. Van Leer agrees that she was on leave from October 1, 2019, through and including, October 16, 2019. (ECF No. 13-1, PageID #143.)
Ms. Van Leer provided this second letter, the one clearing her to return to work, to University Manor. (Id., PageID #128.) She remembered giving the letter to someone at University Manor, but does not recall to whom or when. (Id., PageID #142.) Ms. Van Leer's supervisor, Darlene Rose, recalls that Ms. Van Leer “hand deliver[ed]” the return to work letter to her on the Friday before October 17, 2019, which was the following Thursday. (ECF No. 15-1, PageID #311.) Accordingly, University Manor was aware that Ms. Van Leer's physician cleared her to return to work on October 17, 2019. According to the October 2019 schedule, Ms. Van Leer was scheduled to work that day, which was signified by the “W” that appeared by her name. (ECF No. 13-7, PageID #202.) Ms. Van Leer did not come to work on October 17, 2019, and did not call in to let University Manor know she would not be there. (ECF No. 13-1, PageID #129.)
University Manor has a “no-call no-show” termination policy, meaning if an employee does not show up for work and does not call in before the start of her shift, she is summarily terminated. (Id., PageID #121.) Over the course of three years, Rose recalled that fifty-eight employees besides Ms. Van Leer were fired for violating this specific policy. (ECF No. 17-1, ¶ 7, PageID #358; ECF No. 17-2, PageID #360-65.) Ms. Van Leer knew about the policy because it applied to her both as an STNA and as an LPN. (ECF No. 13-1, PageID #121.) The policy is also included in University Manor's employee handbook. (ECF No. 13-3, PageID #179.) Ms. Van Leer received a copy of that policy on April 5, 2016 and acknowledged that she received and read it. (ECF No. 13-1, PageID #121.) The policy did not change during her employment. (Id.)
Based on this policy, when Ms. Van Leer did not come in for work on October 17, 2019, Rose reported this fact to University Manor's director of nursing, Sadiqa Mills. (ECF No. 15-1, PageID #313.) Mills then tried to call Ms. Van Leer “twice” or “three times, ” to no avail. (Id.) Later that day, Rose went to another supervisor, Jean Hollenbeck, who also called Ms. Van Leer, but could not reach her. (Id.)
The next day, October 18, 2019, Hollenbeck was able to get ahold of Ms. Van Leer and initially told her to come in the next day she was scheduled to work- October 19-so they could discuss the no-show. (ECF No. 14-1, PageID #267.) After they hung up, Hollenbeck walked to Mills' office where the two discussed the phone call Hollenbeck had with Ms. Van Leer. (Id., PageID #267.) Upon hearing that Hollenbeck told Ms. Van Leer to report the next day, Mills provided her opinion that Ms. Van Leer should be terminated for a no-call, no-show violation, there was no need for her to come in, and she suggested Hollenbeck call Ms. Van Leer back and inform her of this decision. (ECF No. 16-1, PageID #350.) Hollenbeck agreed, called Ms. Van Leer back, and informed her of her termination. (Id., PageID #350-51; ECF No. 14-1, PageID #267.) Hollenbeck recognized the policy for no-call, no-show violations permits “no leniency” and “if you don't call, you don't show up, you lose your job.” (ECF No. 14-1, PageID #267.)
Ms. Van Leer remembers these calls similarly, that Hollenbeck called her on October 18, 2019, asking if she would come in the next day. (ECF No. 13-1, PageID #129-30.) She also recollected Hollenbeck calling back a second time, approximately fifteen minutes later, and saying “basically . . . that it was brought to her attention that [Ms. Van Leer] was supposed to be present at work on October 17th, ” that she had not appeared, and her employment was terminated. (Id., PageID #130.)
University Manor also provided Ms. Van Leer a...
To continue reading
Request your trial