White v. Standard Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 February 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 10–11385.
• Parties: Darla Kay WHITE, Plaintiff, v. The STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign Corporation and Security First Associated Agency, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

895 F.Supp.2d 817

Darla Kay WHITE, Plaintiff,

v.The STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign Corporation and Security First Associated Agency, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, Defendants.

Case No. 10–11385.

United States District Court,

E.D. Michigan,

Northern Division.

Feb. 9, 2012.

Frederick C. Overdier, Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner, PLC, Saginaw, MI, for Plaintiff.

Warren Von Schleicher, Smith, Von Schleicher & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Defendant Standard Ins. Co.

Gregory W. Mair, O'Neill, Wallace & Doyle, PC, Saginaw, MI, for Defendant Security First Associated Agency, Inc.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SECURITY FIRST'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, GRANTING STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS WITH PREJUDICE

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, District Judge.

On April 7, 2010, Plaintiff Darla Kay White filed a complaint (ECF No. 1) against The Standard Insurance Company (“Standard”) and Security First Associated Agency (“Security First”). Security First was Plaintiff's employer during the time period relevant to the complaint. Security First purchased a group disability policy for its employees including Plaintiff from Standard Insurance. Plaintiff's complaint originally included five counts alleging claims of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) violations against both Defendants as well as claims of discrimination and retaliation arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against Security First. Plaintiff's second count seeking injunctive relief under ERISA § 502(a)(2)(3) and Plaintiff's fifth count alleging an ERISA fraud claim were subsequently dismissed by stipulation of the parties.

Security First filed a motion for summary judgment on May 12, 2011, (ECF No. 32), contending that Plaintiff's claims of discrimination and retaliation under the ADA should be dismissed because at the time her employment was terminated, she was given the ability to seek reinstatement if and when she were able to perform her full-time duties. Plaintiff, however, did not seek reinstatement; she requested that her job be restructured. Security First contends that Plaintiff's request for restructuring her job to have less than a full-time presence does not implicate reasonable accommodation because her full-time presence was an essential function of her job. Plaintiff disputes Security First's assertion, and contends that it could have accommodated her circumstance and further responds that Security First retaliated against her for making the request for accommodation. Plaintiff also contends that Security First did not comply with the ERISA standards regarding Security First's “return to work” accommodation process.

Plaintiff and Standard also filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record (ECF Nos. 33, 38) on May 12, 2011. The factual portions of the opinion are separated below in order to address the different periods of time related to Plaintiff's two claims as well as the administrative standard of review applicable to ERISA claims.

A hearing was conducted on August 17, 2011, to address the parties' motions. For the reasons provided herein, Security First's motion for summary judgment will be granted, Standard's motion for judgment on the administrative record will be granted, and Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the administrative record will be denied.

I. Facts

A. Plaintiff's Employment with Security First

Plaintiff holds an agency license for property and casualty insurance and is a Certified Insurance Service Representative. Plaintiff began work in the insurance industry in 1998, working for Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance for two and a half years. She then worked for several years at Saginaw Bay Underwriters before starting at Security First in 2003. Plaintiff, at all times relevant, was employed as a full-time Customer Service Agent (“CSA”) assigned to Security First's commercial lines department. Plaintiff had experience with trucking lines. She had no experience in handling personal lines insurance for Security First or any other insurance agency. As Plaintiff acknowledged at her deposition, it was desirable and beneficial to Security First's customers to have a single CSA manage each account for continuity purposes. ECF No. 32 Ex. 2 at 22. There were fifteen customer service agents at Security First in 2007–2008.

While at Security First, Plaintiff was working with three different producers concurrently and received satisfactory or superior performance reviews. Plaintiff also received merit pay increases as part of her compensation. Plaintiff was considered an “hourly” worker, which entitled her to receive fringe benefits such as sick leave and vacation time. In 2007, Plaintiff had accrued 176 vacation hours for the year which could not be carried over to the following year. Customer service agents at Security First were permitted to take time off without pay if they had exhausted all of their paid vacation or personal time.

1. Plaintiff injures her back

In September of 2007, Plaintiff sustained a back injury that was not related to her employment. On September 17, 2007, Plaintiff experienced back pain and was treated by her chiropractor who indicated that she needed to consult with her physician regarding her pain. Plaintiff consulted her family physician, Dr. Scott Beasecker, on September 20, 2007. Dr. Beasecker prescribed muscle relaxers and pain medication along with ordering her off work to rest for several weeks.

Plaintiff took the prescribed muscle relaxers and pain medications and rested, but she continued to experience pain in her back. Plaintiff's manager, Lisa Williams, was on leave beginning the week of September 30, 2007. Plaintiff sent an email to Williams on September 21, 2007 requesting a foot rest at her desk. Plaintiff purchased the foot rest and was reimbursed by Security First.

2. Plaintiff is off work and receives short-term disability benefits

On September 26, 2007, Dr. Beasecker ordered Plaintiff off work until October 11, 2007 along with a no bending/lifting restriction as a result of magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”) performed on or about September 25, 2007. Plaintiff notified Security First's employees of her two-week leave by email on September 26, 2007. Plaintiff was unable to return to work on October 11, 2007 and was then placed on short-term disability (“STD”) pursuant to a benefit policy purchased by Security First for its employees. The policy was administered by Standard Insurance and Plaintiff was referred to Security First's human resources Administrator, Karen Goodrich, regarding her inquiries about the disability insurance coverage and about returning to work. Goodrich later informed Plaintiff, in response to her inquiry, that Standard Insurance did not have a “return to work” form for Plaintiff to submit directly to Standard and that, as a result, Security First was to report Plaintiff's hours to Standard once Plaintiff returned.

Plaintiff's back pain continued through the month of October 2007. She notified Security First that her medical leave needed to be extended into November while she continued with her physical therapy three times per week. The physical therapy prescribed for Plaintiff was not, however, alleviating her pain and, therefore, Dr. Beasecker was unwilling to authorize her to return to work until she could consult with a surgeon, which did not take place until December 10, 2007.

3. Plaintiff returns to work part-time contemplating a return to full-time employment

Plaintiff's STD benefits were set to “max out” on December 24, 2007. Plaintiff was released to return to work on a temporary, part-time basis by Dr. Beasecker on or about December 13, 2007, with the restriction that she could work no more than four hours per day along with no bending or lifting beyond fifteen pounds. Dr. Beasecker testified that he supported Plaintiff's effort in December 2007 to return to work part-time, and was aware that she performed clerical work that did not involve significant heavy lifting or other physical demands. Dr. Beasecker also testified that he had hoped Plaintiff's part-time work would only be for a couple months before returning to full time work.

Accordingly, Plaintiff requested to return to work on a temporary part-time basis with Dr. Beasecker's restrictions. Plaintiff's restriction and request for part-time reinstatement presented a unique situation for Security First as they had never employed permanent CSA's part-time. Security First CEO, Thomas Cowan, testified that Security First decided to make an exception and temporarily accommodate Plaintiff's request for part-time employment because Cowan considered her an important employee. The Security First Board of Directors approved Cowan's request for Plaintiff to work part-time on January 30, 2008, after Plaintiff had already been working part-time for over a month. Plaintiff's manager informed her that returning to work part-time, even on a temporary basis, is something that had never occurred at Security First but that Security First was short-staffed at that time. Security First agreed to allow Plaintiff to return to work part-time for approximately six weeks. Security First's decision was in part based upon the fact that Plaintiff had informed Security First that she hoped to be capable of full-time work in early 2008, but could not be sure until her January 14, 2008, doctor's visit.

4. Plaintiff is advised her long term disability benefits will terminate with her return to work

Plaintiff's part-time employment required her to convert her STD, which expired on December 24, 2007, to a long-term disability (“LTD”) benefit to subsidize her reduced income. Plaintiff was notified by Standard Insurance on January 29, 2008, that her LTD was set to expire on February 11, 2008. Standard Insurance indicated that the reason for the February...