Walker v. Nana WorleyParsons, LLC
| Decision Date | 28 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:11-cv-00089-SLG |
| Parties | CAMMIE WALKER, Plaintiff, v. NANA WORLEYPARSONS, LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
Cammie Walker initiated this action against her former employer, NANA WorleyParsons, LLC (NWP) in Alaska Superior Court in April 2011.1 The Complaint sought damages for interference with Ms. Walker's rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), disability discrimination in violation of AS 18.80.220 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), interference with Ms. Walker's rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), violation of AS 23.05.140, intentional interference with contract, breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and wrongful retaliatory discharge in violation of Alaska public policy.2 NWP removed the action to federal court on April 25, 2011.3
On June 15, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation Regarding Partial Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claims.4 Pursuant to that stipulation, Ms. Walker's Fifth Cause of Action (Intentional Interference with Contract) was dismissed in its entirety, and Ms. Walker'sSixth Cause of Action (Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) and Seventh Cause of Action (Retaliatory Discharge) were dismissed to the extent these claims overlap with Ms. Walker's ERISA claim.5
Before the Court is NWP's Motion for Summary Judgment.6 Oral argument on the motion was held on November 8, 2012.
Many of the facts are not substantially in dispute. But the parties disagree on at least one critical issue: what occurred on April 9, 2009.
Cammie Walker began working for NWP's Predecessor, NANA/Colt Engineering, LLC, as a Project Controls Specialist in 2003.7 The offer letter specified that Ms. Walker could work from a "remote site for 1-2 days per week and 3-4 days in the NANA/Colt Anchorage office."8 Ms. Walker indicated that she initially worked three days in the office and two days from her home in Willow, Alaska.9 Ms. Walker's job description included the following tasks that involved working with others: (1) "Meets with others to determine status of various projects"; (2) "Coordinates information between departments . . ."; and (3) "Interfaces with client and team members to explain estimatesand techniques used to derive these estimates."10 Ms. Walker acknowledged that her job duties included "face-to-face in-person meetings" and that "face time was an important . . . part of [her] job."11 Ms. Walker was the only employee in her position that was allowed to work from a remote site and given a flexible work schedule.12 She has acknowledged that she had attendance issues beginning in 2007 and continuing into 2008.13
In August 2004, Ms. Walker was diagnosed with fibromyalgia.14 She promptly informed her direct supervisor, Robin Krajnik, about the condition.15 In October 2004, Ms. Walker requested information from NWP's Human Resources (HR) representative, Wendy Osen, about the company's disability benefits.16 Ms. Osen responded with detailed information about long term and short term disability benefits as well as FMLA benefits.17 By 2007, Ms. Walker was spending approximately two days per week in theoffice and working the rest of her hours from home due primarily to her worsening physical condition.18
In October 2008, Ms. Krajnik informed Ms. Walker that she would be required to work full time in the office beginning in 2009. The parties present different recollections of the reason for this change. Ms. Walker indicates that Ms. Krajnik told Ms. Walker that the schedule change was needed "due to changes in the business climate."19 Ms. Krajnik testified that by October 2008, Ms. Walker was having a hard time satisfying her two-day-a-week in-office schedule. After receiving client complaints about Ms. Walker's performance, Ms. Krajnik testified that the schedule change was intended to "help [Ms. Walker] to be successful and to learn the systems that we had in place at [NWP]."20
On December 17, 2008, Ms. Krajnik emailed Ms. Walker to confirm that Ms. Walker would "be in the office full time starting January 5, 2009."21 Ms. Walker responded, 22 Ms. Krajnik's supervisor, Michael Irmen, acknowledged that this proposal constituted a request for an accommodation.23 But Ms. Krajnik testified that Ms. Walker's proposal to work part-time after February was notsatisfactory to NWP given its projects at that time. However, Ms. Krajnik recommended to her superior that Ms. Walker be permitted to work her current schedule with two days per week in the office until her last day of February 27, 2009.24
On January 6, 2009, Ms. Krajnik emailed Ms. Walker to confirm her resignation effective February 27, 2009.25 Ms. Walker responded that same day that "I do not want to lose my job but there is no way I can physically be in the office every day." In this email, Ms. Walker indicated that she was gathering information about the Americans with Disabilities Act and she did not want to commit to resigning her position until after she met with her doctor.26
Ms. Krajnik responded by email dated January 12, 2009 that Ms. Walker would be accorded a "special schedule of four (4) days in the office," but added "[i]f you are unable to adhere to this special schedule I will again need to accept your resignation you submitted on December 17, 2008."27 In this email, Ms. Krajnik also shared her "observations and concerns" with Ms. Walker's attendance, noting that some weeks Ms. Walker was "in the office one day a week or not at all" and that she had "not fulfilled the duties of a Project Controls Specialist."28 Ms. Krajnik added, "the company has grown in its client base and complexity of projects and is adopting new project control systems in line with WorleyParsons requirements," and that it was "essential for the success ofthe implementation of these systems . . . that [Ms. Walker] be in the office four days a week."29
In an email dated January 19, 2009, Ms. Walker responded "I do not want, or intend to resign my position." Instead, she wrote that she was "requesting an accommodation to continue working from home 3 days per week for medical reasons per the American Disabilities Act."30
By email dated February 3, 2009, a NWP HR representative sent Ms. Walker information regarding available FMLA benefits that provided job-protected leave. The email also included links to information about disability benefits.31 NWP subsequently mailed Ms. Walker a hard copy of the FMLA paperwork. Ms. Walker testified that she received this paperwork, but that she was "still pushing back pretty hard on the disability suggestions" at that time so she threw the paperwork away.32
On February 17, 2009, Ms. Krajnik and Mr. Irmen met with Ms. Walker and presented her with a Notification of Workplace Performance Probation Based on Poor Work Quality (WPP).33 The WPP identified several concerns with Ms. Walker's work, including "[her] lack of availability to attend scheduled client meetings or project and missing team meetings."34 Ms. Walker acknowledged some performance deficiencies,including attendance problems.35 The WPP contained an Action Plan that required Ms. Walker to "report to the NANA WorleyParsons' Anchorage offices to work a minimum of three days per work week so that [she] may meet in person with the project team, the client, the project manager and the Project Controls team."36
On March 9, 2009, Ms. Krajnik and Mr. Irmen met again with Ms. Walker and presented a revised WPP with minor changes.37 The revised WPP Action Plan included the same requirement that Ms. Walker work in Anchorage a minimum of three days per week.38
After the March 9 meeting, Ms. Krajnik arranged for Ms. Walker to meet with HR to review Ms. Walker's benefit entitlements, including FMLA and disability leave.39
On March 24, 2009, Ms. Walker sent Ms. Krajnik an email that indicated that she was meeting with her doctors and "looking into the option of taking disability" leave.40
Throughout this time, Ms. Walker testified that she did not change her schedule to work at the Anchorage office three days per week.41
On April 9, 2009, Ms. Krajnik and Mr. Irmen met again with Ms. Walker. The participants have quite different recollections of what occurred at this meeting.
According to Ms. Walker, she believed the April 9 meeting had been scheduled to discuss the revised WPP and the response she had made to it.42 She recalls that at the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Irmen told Ms. Walker that her performance was no longer an issue and that the only remaining issue was Ms. Walker's schedule. He asked if she could change her schedule to be in the office three days per week.43 Ms. Walker responded that she could not do so because she feared losing her job as a result of calling in sick too many days on that schedule.44 Mr. Irmen then told Ms. Walker that she would be terminated unless she decided to go on disability leave.45 Ms. Walker explained to Mr. Irmen that she had already seen the doctor and had filled out the disability paperwork, and that she would choose to go on disability over getting terminated.46 According to Ms. Walker, Mr. Irmen replied "great," and then Mr. Irmen, Ms. Krajnik, and Ms. Walker decided her FMLA would start at noon the following day.47 Ms. Krajnik and Ms. Walker then discussed which tasks needed to be reassigned and which tasks Ms. Walker could complete in the next 24 hours.48 Then Ms. Walker "was sent back to [her] office to pick up my FMLA paperwork," and went to her office at theDimond Center to retrieve it.49 She then returned to NWP's downtown office to hand in her FMLA paperwork to HR approximately two hours...
To continue reading
Request your trial