Wonasue v. Univ. of Md. Alumni Ass'n

Citation984 F.Supp.2d 480
Decision Date22 November 2013
Docket NumberCase No. PWG–11–3657.
PartiesSylvia WONASUE, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Scott A. Conwell, Conwell Law LLC, Crofton, MD, for Plaintiff.

Kraig Betner Long, Shawe and Rosenthal LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PAUL W. GRIMM, District Judge.

This Memorandum Opinion addresses and disposes of the Motion for Summary Judgment and accompanying Memorandum that Defendants Danita Nias and the University of Maryland Alumni Association (UMAA) filed, ECF Nos. 64 & 64–1. Plaintiff Sylvia Wonasue has not filed a response, and the time for doing so has passed. See Loc. R. 105.2.a; ECF No. 71 (denying Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time for Response and to Accept Response Filed Out of Time, ECF No. 65); ECF No. 76 (denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for the Defendants to Provide and for the Court to Consider the Full Deposition Transcript, ECF No. 72). For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND1

On Wednesday, January 13, 2010, Ms. Wonasue felt weak, “almost faint,” and nauseous, and she was vomiting and bleeding “a little.” Wonasue Dep. 150:15–151:6, 152:19–153:1.2 She went to the emergency room at Bowie Health Center and learned that she was pregnant. Id. at 150:7–16, 152:14–16. Plaintiff testified that the emergency room physician, Fabrice Czarnecki, M.D., told her that she “was experiencing ... the early sickness symptoms associated with pregnancy,” and that she “had low potassium which was related to [her] eating.” Id. at 154:18–155:1. He did not “tell [her] that the vomiting and nausea was associated with any other medical condition.” Id. at 151:7–152:1. Plaintiff testified that she “was really sick” that day, but “that's the only time [she] remember[s] really vomiting like that during the pregnancy, and weak and faint.” Id. at 156:14–17. Plaintiff characterizes these symptoms as “severe and unusual medical complications” to her pregnancy. Compl. ¶¶ 18–19, ECF No. 1.

Dr. Czarnecki prescribed a “potassium medication because [Ms. Wonasue] needed that to help with the baby[,] [a]nd he may have given [her] pills to help with the nausea.” Wonasue Dep. at 154:12–14. Plaintiff testified that the physician “just thought that [she] needed to regulate the potassium” and “other than that, he didn't think it was a big deal.” Id. at 155:4–6. She said that Dr. Czarnecki did not recommend “any major change regarding ... food.” Id. at 156:3–11. Plaintiff testified that the physician told her that her health “could create a problem with the pregnancy,” and therefore he “wanted [her] to stay calm, take bed rest, drink lots of water .... don't do any heavy work or heavy lifting, stride slowly, things like that.” Id. at 157:2–10.

Plaintiff's discharge papers from Bowie Health Center included Discharge Instructions and a Work Release Form. The instructions indicated that she had hypokalemia, “a low level of potassium in the blood,” for which she was directed to [t]ake any potassium supplements prescribed”and [e]at foods rich in potassium.” Discharge Instructions 2. Plaintiff also suffered from dehydration, for which she was directed to drink appropriate amounts of fluids. Id. at 3. Additionally, the instructions indicated that Plaintiff had hyperemesis of pregnancy, “a severe form of ‘morning sickness', where the vomiting is excessive and may cause dehydration and chemical imbalances in the body.” Id. at 4. The instructions discussed an appropriate diet, suggested Vitamin B6 to help reduce nausea, warned against “strong medicines during pregnancy,” and directed Plaintiff to contact her gynecologist to schedule “an appointment to be seen within the next 4 days.” Id. The “Activity” section, in its entirety, stated: “After awakening from sleep, remain in bed for 15 minutes before getting up.” Id.

At the time, Plaintiff was working as executive manager of UMAA. Compl. ¶ 9. The Work Release Form stated that Ms. Wonasue “may return to work on 01/15/2010 with the following restrictions: None.” Work Release 1; see Wonasue Dep. 164:10–12 (Work Release Form said that Plaintiff could “return to duty on January 15, 2010). Plaintiff testified that her January 13, 2010 emergency room visit was her “only medical visit ... prior to leaving the Alumni Association,” and that she only received one “work release form ... related to [her] pregnancy before [she] left the Alumni Association.” Wonasue Dep. 163:9–16.

Plaintiff “thought” she was supposed to be on bed rest “for two weeks initially.” Id. at 167:17–18. During her deposition, Plaintiff could not identify where in her discharge papers the physician ordered bed rest after January 15, 2010, but she said that he talked to [her] about it that day at the hospital.” Id. at 177:12–20. She insisted that the physician “did tell [her] specifically that [she] needed to get bed rest,” and that [h]e was worried because the vomiting was severe” and Plaintiff “was so faint.” Id. at 178:9–12. Plaintiff insists that she “had a paper” from her January 13, 2010 emergency room visit that “said on it have bed rest, drink a lot water, all the specific instructions,” but at her deposition, Plaintiff did not “know where it is.” Id. at 164:13–21. Yet, she also testified that the physician “didn't say [she] couldn't work,” id. at 165:10–12, and did not “tell [her] that [she] had to stop work temporarily,” although he told [her that she] had to get bed rest,” id. at 166:3–6.

Plaintiff testified that, two days later, on Friday, January 15, 2010, she told her supervisor, Defendant Nias, that she was pregnant, that she had “been feeling sick the past weekend,” that she experienced “vomiting and weakness,” that she went to the hospital, and that “the doctor had advised [her] to take bed rest.” Wonasue Dep. 173:7–174:12. Plaintiff also testified that she told Ms. Nias that the physician gave her “specific instructions to take bed rest, drink water, ... not to do any heavy lifting, and stride slowly.” Id. at 174:18–21. Yet, in the “Fact–Finding Statement” Plaintiff provided for the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation's Office of Unemployment Insurance's Fact Finding Report, Plaintiff stated that, when she asked to “work from home two days per week” so that she “would not have to be on [her] feet all day,” she “did not indicate any medical restrictions, because at that time [she] did not have any.” Fact Finding Report, Defs.' Request for Admissions Ex. 1, Defs.' Mem. Ex. E, ECF No. 64–6. In their Memorandum, Defendants agree with Ms. Wonasue's testimony, but only insofar as she testified that she “told Nias that she had ‘not been feeling well’ and that she had gone to the hospital and learned that she was pregnant.” Defs.' Mem. 4.

Plaintiff said that “most of what [she] was doing” at work, she “could do from home,” so she asked permission to “take some time off to work from home on and off just in the interim until [she felt] better,” as she “wouldn't mind sitting at home and doing it in bed just so [she could] follow the doctor's instructions.” Wonasue Dep. 175:1–7. According to Plaintiff, she requested “reasonable accommodation[s] and “leave” because, [b]eginning on January 15, 2010, Plaintiff required medical leave and reasonable changes to her work schedule to accommodate severe and unusual medical complications that threatened her own and her baby's health.” Compl. ¶¶ 19–21. Plaintiff showed Ms. Nias the paperwork she received from the physician. Wonasue Dep. 175:8–17. Plaintiff said that Ms. Nias “didn't read” or “take” the documents Plaintiff offered to her, and did not want Ms. Nias to put them in her inbox. Id. at 179:19–20, 181:4–8. Plaintiff also asked Ms. Nias if, alternatively, she could use her sick or annual leave. Pl.'s Answers to Interrogs. 4, Defs.' Mem. Ex. D, ECF No. 64–5.

Plaintiff claims that Ms. Nias denied her requests, Wonasue Dep. 180:17–19, and instead tried “to force her out of her position by, among other examples, changing her work schedule to make it less accommodating, giving her [an] impossible set of tasks and timeframe to perform them in, [and] specifying duties that she clearly could not perform given her medical condition....” Compl. ¶¶ 21, 23. According to Plaintiff, she “attempted to perform according to Defendants' demands, ... and this further jeopardized her baby's and her own health and lives,” as she “experienced such severe medical complications, that she was rushed by ambulance to the emergency room” and then “her physicians altered her medical status and required her to go on bed rest ....” Id. ¶¶ 24–26. Plaintiff submitted her resignation letter on January 19, 2010. Wonasue Dep. Ex. 14. Plaintiff insists that she was constructively discharged from her position. Id. ¶ 27. Yet, in her statement to the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation's Office of Unemployment Insurance, Plaintiff declared that her decision to resign “was a personal choice.” Fact Finding Report. Her employer noted that, [h]ad she indicated any medical restrictions, she could have filed for an FMLA leave of absence, as she would have been eligible.” Id.

Plaintiff said that she saw her obstetrician [l]ater, after [she] left the alumni,” and he said that [she] needed rest, too.” Wonasue Dep. 163:5–8. She testified that “after [she] left the Alumni Association, [she] almost had a miscarriage,” so she “went to Bowie Hospital, and then they took [her] by ambulance to PG and gave [her] lots of treatments and stuff for that.” Id. at 158:11–15. On February 2, 2010, her obstetrician put her on bed rest through October 29, 2010 due to “pregnancy bleeding.” Fact Finding Report. Plaintiff stated that, at that time, she “had already made the decision to quit.” Id. After that, she “was sick a lot during...

To continue reading

Request your trial
87 cases
  • Hinton v. Va. Union Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 4 May 2016
    ...Warning," 'a verbal reprimand, ‘a formal letter of reprimand,’ or ‘a proposed termination.’ " Wonasue v. University of Maryland Alumni Ass'n, 984 F.Supp.2d 480, 492 (D.Md.2013) (quoting Rock v. McHugh, 819 F.Supp.2d 456, 470–71 (D.Md.2011) ).Wright v. Kent Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., No. CIV......
  • Webster v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, Case No: 15–cv–1261–RCL
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 25 August 2017
    ...medical conditions do not, absent unusual conditions, constitute a [disability] under the ADA.' "); Wonasue v. Univ. of Maryland Alumni Ass'n , 984 F.Supp.2d 480, 489 (D. Md. 2013) ; Olojo v. Kennedy–King Coll. , No. 05 C 6234, 2006 WL 1648441, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 7, 2006) ; Farrell v. Ti......
  • Short v. Berryhill
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 24 September 2019
    ...plan, an Attendance Warning, a verbal reprimand, a formal letter of reprimand, or a proposed termination." Wonasue v. Univ. of Md. Alumni Ass'n, 984 F. Supp. 2d 480, 492 (D. Md. 2013); see also Thorn v. Sebelius, 766 F. Supp. 2d 585, 603 (D. Md. 2011) (noting that "unwarranted reprimands" s......
  • Van Story v. Wash. Cnty. Health Dep't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 25 July 2019
    ...Attendance Warning,' a verbal reprimand, 'a formal letter of reprimand,' or 'a proposed termination.'" Wonasue v. Univ. of Maryland Alumni Ass'n, 984 F. Supp. 2d 480, 492 (D. Md. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted in part) (quoting Rock v. McHugh, 819 F. Supp. 2d 456, 470-71 (D. Md. 20......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter § 1-5 29 CFR § 825.104. Covered Employer
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Maslanka's Texas Field Guide to Employment Law Title Chapter 1 The Family and Medical Leave Act
    • Invalid date
    ...29 CFR 825.106. What evidence might suffice to defeat summary judgment? Organizational charts. • Wonasue v. Univ. of Md. Alumni Ass'n, 984 F. Supp. 2d 480 (D. Md. 2013) (an alumni association (employing just fourteen individuals) argues that it is not an integrated employer with the univers......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT