Veltri v. DFS Servs. LLC
| Decision Date | 22 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:09-cv-416 |
| Parties | LINDA VELTRI Plaintiff, v. DFS SERVICES LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Linda Veltri ("Veltri") alleges that during her employment with defendant DFS Services LLC ("DFS"), DFS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.01 et seq., and Ohio public policy by discriminating against her based on her disability.1 DFS has filed a motion for summary judgment that is now ripe for this court's review.
The facts of this case are largely undisputed and are recited in a light most favorable to Veltri. Veltri was a long-term employee of DFS, beginning her employment with the company in 1989 and ending with her resignation on August 18, 2008. Throughout her tenure, Veltri held various positions, the last as a senior team leader in the DFS Card Member Assistance ("CMA") department. That department handles the collection ofoutstanding accounts, and the employees within that department contact cardholders in an attempt to secure payments.
In her role as senior team leader, Veltri was responsible for ensuring that the employees she supervised satisfied their midmonth and month-end deadlines. Several of her monthly deadlines were time sensitive in nature, including timekeeping, performance evaluations, discipline, and the submission of monthly reports. Veltri also conducted monthly meetings with her team members as well as periodic training sessions.
Veltri was also expected to satisfy certain monthly goals. These goals included team dollar goals, compliance monitoring, and department results when comparing her team to other centers. Each collection representative was to achieve or exceed their defined amount of monthly dollars collected. This amount was based on the amount of money collected by the department, divided by the hours worked within the department. Therefore, an increase in sales in one shift would increase monthly goals for the entire department.
As a senior team leader, Veltri worked within level 1 of the CMA department. The employees she supervised in level 1 were responsible for collecting accounts that were 60 to 89 days delinquent. Accounts that were delinquent for fewer days, such as 0-30, were considered easier to collect because a cardholder in default fewer days was statistically more likely to pay when contacted. In order to contact cardholders, an automatic dialer would place phone calls for the CMA representatives. The automatic dialer routed calls of the proper delinquency level to the proper representatives, i.e., level 1 representatives would receive calls for card members that were for 60-89 days delinquent.
In the early part of 2006 and during Veltri's time as a senior team leader in the CMA department, the automatic dialer system began experiencing what came to be known as "system issues." The Level 1 evening shift began running out of accounts to call thatwere at the appropriate level of delinquency of 60-89 days. As a result, the automatic dialer began routing calls to evening shift level 1 employees that were only 0-30 days delinquent and, therefore, easier to collect. These system issues allowed the evening shift to collect more dollars on delinquent accounts than other level 1 shifts who did not receive the 0-30 day calls. Because monthly goals are based upon the amount of money collected by the department divided by the hours worked within the department, the system issues increased the goals for all level 1 employees. In other words, the system issues increased the level of expectations for the employees Veltri supervised and for Veltri herself.
Veltri and other team leaders received complaints from their subordinates about the system issues and complained to upper management. Veltri alleges DFS still required her to discipline subordinates for performance falling below the monthly goals, even though the goals were unfairly skewed. She described her high stress level to her manager and he told her that DFS was "working on it." Although DFS assured CMA employees that they were trying to fix the system issues, months went by and nothing changed.
Veltri alleges that the stress of the system issues caused her to suffer physical and mental impairments. In 2006, she began taking medication for anxiety because of the stress she was under at work. In 2007, Veltri began having difficulty speaking clearly and expressing her ideas in meetings and her manager commented about her inability to articulate. She then began to make extensive notes to read from during these meetings so that she could meaningfully participate. At one point, her doctor required her to wear a heart monitor for 24 hours so that he could monitor her blood pressure. Veltri alleges her manager "was aware of this test and the reason for the testing." Veltri Affidavit, ¶14, attached to Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition (hereinafter "Veltri Aff.").
At her home, on September 16, 2007, Veltri experienced a "severe anxiety attack" that caused her to lose "control of [her] body." (Veltri Aff. ¶15.) She had trouble breathing, her muscles tensed up, and she was unable to speak. She then began crying, uttering grunts, and losing motor control. The attack subsided throughout the evening. She consulted with her doctor the next day and elected to take short term disability leave under the DFS group plan.
DFS retained the Reed Group to administer its leave of absence policies and certify requests for short term disability benefits. The Reed Group acted as a liaison between DFS and the employee when an employee took disability leave. On December 8, 2007 Veltri's therapist, Stephanie Leach, faxed a fitness for duty form to the Reed Group requesting that DFS modify Veltri's job duties for a period of thirty days, beginning January 7, 2008. Leach requested that Veltri have limited work hours, increased time to satisfy deadlines, no responsibility for organizing trainings and meetings, and no responsibility for conducting performance evaluations.
On December 12, 2007, the Reed Group informed DFS of its receipt of the fitness for duty form. On January 3, 2008, Veltri returned a call from DFS Human Resource Manager Jennifer O'Dee. During that conversation, O'Dee asked Veltri if Veltri was aware of the request, and Veltri indicated that she was not. O'Dee then read aloud to Veltri the accommodation request submitted by the therapist. O'Dee informed Veltri that she was planning a meeting with DFS VP Dan Stedman and DFS Director of Operations Sherry Highfield regarding Veltri's therapist's accommodation request. O'Dee informed Veltri that she would have to attend trainings and meetings. Veltri told O'Dee that her therapist would not have a problem with this requirement. O'Dee then indicated that DFS did not have to accommodate any of Veltri's requests. O'Dee informed Veltri that she would contactKaren Anderson from the Reed Group in an effort to obtain further clarification concerning the accommodations.
Ultimately, O'Dee conferred with Highfield and Stedman. Highfield and Stedman suggested that Veltri could work a 20-hour per week schedule, be reassigned to a different supervisor, and be given the assistance of a Team Coach. Highfield and Stedman said they could not accommodate the request that Veltri have increased time on deadlines, not be responsible for organizing training or meetings, and not be responsible for performance evaluations. O'Dee then notified Karen Anderson of the Reed Group regarding how DFS could accommodate Veltri's request, stating January 3, 2008 E-mail from Jennifer O'Dee to the Reed Group, attached as Exhibit N to DFS's Motion for Summary Judgment.
The following day, on January 4, 2008, Anderson informed Veltri that she would be permitted to return to work with a modified work schedule of four hours per day with a coach as of January 7, 2008. Veltri was informed that she needed to be able to attend meetings and training sessions and that she would be required to perform all her position duties while working her reduced hours. Later that same day, a Reed Group representative called to tell Veltri that she could not return to work because her doctor had not released her to return to work under the accommodations offered by DFS.
Later in January, Veltri contacted the Reed Group and asked if she could assist the Human Resources department with interviews, be a floating manager, or be a flex-time manager. These requests were denied. Veltri acknowledges that she had never worked inthe HR department before or been officially assigned to human resources and she acknowledged that the position of floating manager would have to be created specifically for her. Veltri was told by DFS that there was no such position as a flex-time manager.2
On January 14, 2008, DFS received a request for a revision of the accommodations that eliminated some of her restrictions but still retained the "increased time on deadlines" request. (January 14, 2008 E-mail from David Wachowiak attached as Exhibit 11 to Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition.) DFS responded that "due to the essential functions of the position, deadlines are a required task of a [team leader]." (Id.)
On February 6, 2008, Veltri's therapist again changed the accommodations request to only include a Team Coach and limited work hours for 30 days, with a return to work date of February 22, 2008. On February 11, 2008, DFS told Reed Group that Veltri's team leader position had been filled and that they could offer her a CMA collections...
To continue reading
Request your trial