MICHAEL J. DAVIS, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. [Docket No. 36] The Court heard oral argument on June 12, 2019. On September 30, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting Defendant's motion and stating that a Memorandum of Law would follow. [Docket No. 57] In accordance with that Order, the Court now issues the following Memorandum of Law.
Plaintiff Crystal Dragonite is the mother of and primary caregiver to four minor children, three of whom have serious mental health issues. (Marshall Decl., Ex. A, Dragonite Dep. 26-27; Dragonite Decl. ¶ 6.)
Defendant South Lake Clinic, P.A., doing business as South Lake Pediatric Clinic ("South Lake") is a pediatrics practice located in the Twin Cities' suburbs with 6 clinics. (
Charlotte Rupp was the Health Information Management ("HIM") supervisor. (Marshall Decl., Ex. B, Rupp. Dep. 11-12.) Marcine Jablonski was the Director of Business Systems. (Marshall Decl., Ex. C, Jablonski Dep. 12.) Heidi Northrup was the Clinic Administrator. (Marshall Decl., Ex. D, Northrup Dep. 7-8.) Stephanie Leach was the Human Resources Manager. (Marshall Decl., Ex. E, Leach Dep. 10.)
In June 2010, South Lake hired Dragonite as a scheduler in the Scheduling and Medical Records department, located at South Lake's Minnetonka clinic. (Dragonite Dep. 53; Dragonite Decl. ¶ 3; Dragonite Decl., Ex. A.) She was hired by Rupp, who was Dragonite's supervisor throughout her employment. (Dragonite Dep. 53.)
When Plaintiff began her employment, South Lake's 2009 Employee Handbook was in place. (Beck Aff., Ex. 5, 2009 Handbook.) It stated:
(2009 Handbook at 28.)
When Dragonite was hired, she had three children. (Dragonite Dep. 54.) In 2010, Dragonite did not need to take leave for her children's medical issues as much as she would need to later in her employment. (
Over the course of Dragonite's employment with Defendant, she made and was granted approximately 100 requests for FMLA leave; many of the requests were for intermittent leave and covered more than one absence, totaling hundreds of leaves. (Beck Aff., Ex. 4.) Dragonite testified that she was occasionally asked to reschedule a medical appointment because of staffing issues but also that she was able to cover all of her needs for leave. (Dragonite Dep. 107-08.) Dragonite points to no request for leave that was turned down because of insufficient notice.
According to Dragonite, South Lake erred in designating some of her leave requests, such as for an IEP issue, as FMLA leave rather than leave under the Minnesota School Activity and Conference Leave Act. (
Beginning early in Dragonite's employment, she was consistently warned about her interpersonal issues with coworkers and supervisors, while also receiving positive reviews for her work ethic and technical skills.
South Lake gave Dragonite her first written warning on May 2, 2011 for "Unacceptable Behavior." (Beck Aff., Ex. 2.) The warning stated that Rupp and Dragonite had "had a couple verbal discussions about unacceptable behavior in the work place. I am once again addressing the issues in writing this time." (
In June of 2011, Plaintiff made her first FMLA leave request, asking for intermittent FMLA leave to care for one of her sons. (Dragonite Decl., Ex. D.) The request was approved. (
Throughout Dragonite's employment at South Lake, her performance reviews praised her work ethic and skills, but also consistently mentioned her "unacceptable behavior in the work place" with regard to interactions with coworkers or supervisors. (
On April 12, 2012, Plaintiff received a written warning for "Unacceptable Behavior." (Beck Aff., Ex. 3.) The warning stated that Dragonite was "still having issues" with the behavior mentioned in the 2011 warning and continued that there were also "additional issues that need to improve," namely "Harsh and snotty comments out loud about your co-workers" and "Trust issues with co-workers." (
On May 31, 2012, Dragonite and Ginny Polson had an email exchange in which Dragonite asked why her pay stub showed that she had used a certain amount of PTO when she had actually taken FMLA leave and only a half hour of PTO. (Rupp Dep., Ex. 23.) Polson responded that she used that amount of PTO to make 40 hours for the week for Dragonite because she had not seen a time off slip showing FMLA leave but offered to reverse the PTO on Dragonite's check. (
In 2012, South Lake designated Dragonite as a "Super User" with regard to the new electronic medical records system within her department based on her ability to adapt to the new system. (Marshall Decl., Ex. C, Jablonski Dep 72.) As a Super User, she served as a resource to answer questions for coworkers on the operation of the new system. (Dragonite Dep. 170.)
In January 2013, South Lake's medical records were reorganized to become fully digital, and South Lake promoted Dragonite to a medical records position in the new Health Information Management Department ("HIM"). (Rupp Dep., Exs. 29-30; Dragonite Dep. 91; Dragonite Decl. ¶ 5; Dragonite Decl., Ex. B.) Rupp remained Dragonite's supervisor. (Dragonite Dep. 91-92.)
In April 2013, Dragonite had her fourth child. (Dragonite Decl. ¶ 12; Rupp Dep., Ex. 32.) In October 2013, she recertified intermittent FMLA leave for her children's health care needs, and in November 2013, she submitted an additional request for intermittent FMLA leave for the care of her daughter, which was approved that month. (Dragonite Decl., Ex. H; Dragonite Dep. 117, 119.)
On October 16, 2013, Rupp emailed Polson and Tina Thorson to inform them: "[Dragonite] will be out of the office today and tomorrow. Ginny please use PTO (no FMLA). Thanks." (Rupp Dep., Ex. 37.) Thorson replied: "□" (
In December 2013, Dragonite's son's health needs required that she set up and attend monthly appointments. (Dragonite Decl. ¶ 16.) In January 2014, she had to take leave for multiple emergencies involving her children. (Dragonite Dep. 125.)
On April 11, 2014, Jablonski and Renee Hengemuhle from human resources met with Dragonite to review her hours, discuss her scheduling of appointments, and discuss and review her FMLA leave. (Rupp Dep., Exs. 41-44; Rupp Dep. 118.) Hengemuhle told Dragonite that, in the future, when "major things happened," she should let human resources know so that human resources could "be prepared for it," because they "need[ed] to know that [she] [was] going to be taking more time off." (Dragonite Dep. 136-37.) Hengemuhle also suggested that Dragonite change to part-time employment so that she would not have to take leave to care for her children's health needs. (Dragonite Dep. 138-39; Rupp Dep. 121.)
In June 2014, a revised Employee Handbook was put in place. (Beck Aff., Ex. 1, 2014 Handbook.) The June 2014 Employee Handbook contained a few changes related to FMLA leave. The parties agree that 2014 Handbook required that intermittent leave be certified by a medical provider every six months. It included a requirement that PTO be taken in one-hour increments and stated that there would be not PTO or unpaid time off during the blackout period of mid-August through early September, unless specifically approved by the clinic administrator. (2014 Handbook at 47-48.) However, Dragonite admitted that the one-hour increment requirement was not applied to her, and she was permitted to use FMLA leave in smaller increments. (Dragonite Dep. 157.) She also admitted that the blackout period had always been in place and that her FMLA leave requests were approved during the blackout period. (
On January 22, 2015, Rupp sent an email to Polson stating: "I was looking at the PTO slip and have a question about [Dragonite's] FMLA leave — why is number going down 206e." (Rupp Dep., Ex. 52.) Polson responded: "We use a rolling back calendar method so anything she has used prior the last 26 pay periods falls off her total. 206e Just doesn't seem right, does it?" (
In February 2015, several coworker complaints about Dragonite were documented by Rupp. (Rupp Dep. 154; Rupp Dep., Ex. 54, Feb. 24, 2015 Email from Rupp to Jablonski ("Staff is getting frustrated with [Dragonite] again — how many times do we talk to her before we do anything and what can we do?"); Beck Aff., Ex. 10 (noting staff complaints about Dragonite including "Never stays put in her chair;" "Gossip;" and "Over powering again by telling the staff what they need to do").)
During April 2015, Dragonite requested recertification of her intermittent FMLA. (Dragonite Decl., Ex. K.) On April 8, 2015, Plaintiff contacted Stephanie Leach about renewing the FMLA leave for her children. (Marshall Decl., Ex. E, Leach Dep. 52.)
On Thursday, April 9, 2015, Dragonite's coworker, Jamilah Thomas, began complaining of headaches and dizziness. (Dragonite Dep. 13; Rupp. Dep 187, Dragonite Decl. ¶¶ 30-31.) Rupp was not in her office, so Dragonite went to the nurse's station for assistance. (Rupp Dep. 182; Dragonite Decl. ¶ 31.) One of the South Lake medical assistants took Thomas to an exam room. (Dragonite Decl. ¶ 31.) A South Lake pediatrician saw Thomas and did not want her to drive herself, so someone came and picked her up. (Dragonite Decl. ¶ 31; Rupp 167, 172.)
On April 9, 2015, Leach wrote a draft email to Northrup that she did not send stating:
(Rupp Dep., Ex. 58.) Leach testified that she did not remember the context in which Rupp made the statement, but admitted it could have been in response to Leach telling her that the 6-month recertification was just updating documents and there was no decision to be made to approve or deny because the FMLA leave had already been previously approved. (Leach Dep. 73-74.)
On Friday, the following workday, Thomas did not come into work because she was feeling worse and scheduled an appointment with her primary care doctor. (Dragonite Decl. ¶ 32.) Thomas returned to work at South Lake on Monday and thanked Dragonite for getting someone else involved because she was afraid to do it herself. (Dragonite Decl. ¶ 32; Dragonite Dep., Ex. 2.) Thomas complained to Rupp that she had not wanted Dragonite to take her to see a doctor because Thomas did not want to use her PTO, that she did not want to take off work, and that she did not feel it was "fair" because she had been required to use PTO. (Rupp Dep. 167, 174.)
South Lake has a protocol for employee medical treatment, because the doctors and nurse practitioners at the clinics are specialists in pediatric medicine and some will not treat adults because they present issues outside the providers' training. (
(Leach Dep. 68.)
The 2009 South Lake Employee Handbook Lake allows employees to see a South Lake physician for a minor illness such as a sore throat. (2009 Handbook at 9.) The Handbook requires that the employee must ask their immediate supervisor to check with a provider to ask if the clinician is willing to see them; then an appointment must be made with the receptionist and a registration form completed; and the visit will be billed. (
Leach talked to Rupp about the incident; she did not speak to Dragonite, Thomas, the medical assistant, or the doctor who saw Thomas. (Leach Dep. 62, 66-67, 72; Leach Dep., Ex. 94.) No one other than Dragonite was disciplined for the incident. (Rupp Dep. 184; Jablonski Dep. 59; Leach Dep. 69-71.))
On April 14, 2015, South Lake gave Dragonite a warning for the Thomas incident, which stated that Dragonite
(Beck Aff., Ex. 11.)
In the "Employee Response" section, Dragonite wrote: "Coworker did indicate upon returning that she was glad I had spoken w/a nurse as her symptoms got worse." (
In early July 2015, Dragonite turned in her requests for intermittent FMLA leave for July and August 2015. (Rupp Dep., Ex. 68.) Although some of the leaves were during the blackout period, they were all approved by Rupp and Northrup. (
On July 29, 2015, one of Dragonite's coworkers pointed out that there was a delay in care because someone in the scheduling department was sending the HIM department information through the wrong area of the electronic system. (Rupp Dep. 212; Dragonite Dep. 188.) The coworker was not sure how to handle the situation, so Dragonite told her that she would go see if the person in the scheduling department making the mistake was available to talk. (Dragonite Dep. 188-89; Rupp Dep., Ex. 70.) It was near the end of the day, the other person in the department had gone home, her supervisor was on vacation, and the team lead had left for the day. (Dragonite Dep. 189; Rupp Dep., Ex. 70.) Dragonite told Rupp what had happened. (Dragonite Dep. 189.) Rupp said she would take action and instructed Dragonite to return to work, so Dragonite then went back to her desk and finished the workday. (Dragonite Dep. 8-9, 189-90.) Shortly thereafter, at 4:58 p.m., Rupp sent an email to the lead in the scheduling department asking her to remind her staff to not make the mistake. (Rupp Dep., Ex. 70.)
At 10:25 p.m. that same night, Rupp wrote an email to Dragonite stating: "You will need to fill out a separate request for the dates within the black out and Heidi needs to approve it, however FMLA does fall different than a regular request. We can talk about this more in the morning." (Rupp Dep., Ex. 67.) (Rupp Dep. 217-18.)
On July 30, 2015, Dragonite arrived at South Lake at 8:30 a.m. after being on intermittent FMLA leave that morning. (Dragonite Dep. 191.) Rupp told her that she needed to fill out the requests for the leaves during the blackout period because they needed to be specifically approved by Northrup. (
Later that day, at 12:47 p.m., Rupp received an email from the front office specialist (the supervisor in charge of scheduling and reception) regarding the scheduling department issue raised by Dragonite the night before stating:
(Rupp Dep., Ex. 70.)
Rupp interpreted this email to mean that, after she had told Dragonite that she would take care of the problem and to go back to work, the next morning Dragonite had gone to talk about the problem with the scheduling department anyway. (Rupp Dep. 215.) Then, the front office specialist verbally told Rupp that, in fact, after Rupp had told Dragonite that she would take care of the issue and for Dragonite to return to her desk, Dragonite had, instead, returned to talk to the scheduling department about the issue. (
At 4:30 p.m., on July 30, 2015, Rupp and Leach told Dragonite to come to a conference room. (Dragonite Dep. 194.) They told her their version of the events that had occurred with regard to the scheduling department issue, and Dragonite argued that events had not occurred that way and explained what had happened. (
On July 27, 2017, Dragonite served a Complaint against South Lake for a lawsuit in Minnesota state court. On August 16, 2017, South Lake removed the matter to this Court. On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Defendant. The Amended Complaint alleges: Count 1: Violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act — Reprisal Against Plaintiff Based on her Association with Disabled Individuals; Count 2: Violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act — Discrimination Based on Familial Status; Count 3: Violation of Minn. Stat. § 181.9412; and Count 4: Family Medical Leave Act Interference, Denial and Restraint. [Docket No. 22] South Lake now moves for summary judgment on all claims against it.
Summary judgment is appropriate if, viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
The FMLA provides eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period if, among other things, they need to care for a son or daughter with a serious health condition. 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C).
The Eighth Circuit recognizes three types of claims arising under the two subsections. The first type of claim is an entitlement claim, which "occurs where an employer refuses to authorize leave under the FMLA or takes other action to avoid responsibilities under the Act."
When asserting a retaliation claim or discrimination claim, a plaintiff must show "proof of the employer's discriminatory intent."
Here, Plaintiff argues that her claim survives under both the direct and indirect method. "[D]irect evidence is evidence showing a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision, sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action."
Plaintiff asserts that direct evidence supports her claim for FMLA discrimination and retaliation. The Court concludes that, taken together, the evidence by Plaintiff simply does not rise to the level of direct evidence sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action.
Plaintiff notes that Rupp testified that prioritizing Dragonite's leave requests over the leave requests of her coworkers was "unfair" to those coworkers; however, in context, Rupp further testified that she always granted Dragonite's leave requests and that Dragonite's leave requests were not held against her. (Rupp Dep. 111-12.) Rupp also testified that she never received criticism from anyone within South Lake regarding Dragonite's absences, that she tried her "hardest to accommodate" Dragonite, and that she considered Dragonite to be a "good employee." (Rupp Dep. 68, 84, 94.)
Dragonite notes that, in May 2012, Rupp commented on an email exchange between Dragonite and a human resources employee regarding whether particular leave was PTO or FMLA by writing: "Amazing — isn't it?" This comment is ambiguous at best and, more importantly, was made more than three years before Dragonite was terminated and was made before she was promoted in 2013.
Dragonite further points out that, in a January 2015 email to human resources, Rupp used a sad face emoji when asking why Dragonite's FMLA leave was going down. The use of the emoji does not provide a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision or evidence of a discriminatory attitude.
Finally, Dragonite points to an April 2015 draft email that Leach wrote but never sent, in which she states that Rupp had said "we're never going to be able to get rid of [Dragonite]." Leach's recounting of Rupp's statement that they were "never going to be able to get rid of [Dragonite]" arose in the context of dealing with Dragonite's misbehavior. (Rupp Dep., Ex. 58.) The email was dated the same day as the April 2015 incident with Thomas. (Northrup Dep. 54-56.) Also, the comment was made several months before Dragonite was terminated.
Dragonite also points to Hengemuhle's suggestion that she switch to a part-time schedule. Defendant's one-time suggestion of part-time work as part of an overall attempt to work with Dragonite to accommodate her schedule and Defendant's scheduling needs does not constitute direct evidence of animus.
The weak evidence of animus relied upon by Plaintiff is further diminished because there is uncontradicted, extensive evidence that Dragonite had ongoing, escalating boundary, protocol and interpersonal work issues, which was the reason she was terminated. She was consistently warned about boundaries, interpersonal interactions, and following hierarchy. Dragonite, herself, noted these issues in her own self evaluations and in her deposition. In the context of Dragonite's workplace misconduct and South Lake's accommodation of Dragonite's requests for hundreds of incidents of FMLA leave over more than five years, the evidence relied upon by Dragonite is insufficient to constitute direct evidence.
The parties agree that Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct by requesting and taking FMLA leave.
South Lake admits that Dragonite was subject to an adverse employment action when she was terminated.
Dragonite cannot establish a causal connection and, for the same reasons, cannot show pretext.
The first section of both versions of the Employee Handbook states:
(2009 Handbook at 5; 2014 Handbook at 6.) Throughout Dragonite's career with South Lake, she was repeatedly warned for violating this Standard of Conduct. Misconduct is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination.
Dragonite's reliance on generally positive performance reviews does not aid her case because, consistently, the performance reviews also noted that she had problems regarding interactions with coworkers and following hierarchy and boundaries. She received documented discipline based on these issues before she requested or took any FMLA leave and continued to receive warnings about the same behavior throughout her employment. She, herself, noted these issues in her own self-evaluations. She also testified that, based on coworkers' body language when she approached them, she could tell that they were intimidated by her. This is in sharp contrast to the cases upon which Dragonite relies, such as
While Dragonite correctly points out that she was the only employee involved in the Thomas incident who received a verbal warning, she points to no evidence that any of the other employees involved had past persistent issues with failing to follow workplace protocols and hierarchies. Although Dragonite disputes the fairness of the verbal warning for the Thomas incident, she does not dispute that she took Thomas directly to a medical provider when the South Lake policy 1) only covered employees seeking medical attention for minor ailments and 2) required an employee seeking medical attention to ask a supervisor to ask a medical provider if he or she was comfortable giving the treatment and then make an appointment and fill out forms for treatment and billing. The final incident that led to her termination is documented in the record and involves the same issue of failing to follow hierarchy and boundaries in the workplace.
Finally, Dragonite's reliance on temporal proximity fails because Dragonite was constantly recertifying, requesting, and being granted FMLA leave on a regular basis. The fact that she was terminated soon after requesting more intermittent FMLA leave that was no greater in quantity or frequency than the frequent FMLA leave that was a normal course of her employment is insufficient to raise a material question as to a causal connection.
There is no dispute that Defendant received many complaints about Dragonite and that she was viewed as a difficult coworker. There is no dispute that she received two "last chance" warnings and was told that she could be terminated. There is no dispute that Dragonite violated South Lake policy in April 2015 when she took a coworker to see a medical provider at South Lake. There is no dispute that she was warned after taking that action. In July 2015, it was reported to Rupp that Dragonite had again circumvented her supervisor by giving her coworker instructions on how to do her job. Defendant had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing Dragonite.
Dragonite cannot show pretext. There are no statements demonstrating animus. There are no examples of South Lake treating a similarly situated employee who did not take FMLA leave better than it treated Dragonite. Timing alone does not establish pretext, particularly in the context of this case in which, for many years, Dragonite was frequently recertifying, requesting, and being granted FMLA leave.
From the beginning of Dragonite's employment with Defendant, she was lauded for her technical skill and work ethic and consistently criticized for her failure to follow reporting structures and her personal behavior. Her own self reviews show that she was intimidating, overbearing, and difficult to get along with.
"To succeed, [Plaintiff] must show that she was eligible for FMLA leave, that [Defendant] was on notice of her need for FMLA leave, and that the company denied her benefits to which she was entitled to under the FMLA."
Dragonite was never denied FMLA leave; she requested and received hundreds of FMLA leaves during her employment.
Additionally, Plaintiff fails to identify any impermissible requirements that South Lake imposed for FMLA leave that could have interfered with or discouraged her ability to take FMLA leave. The FMLA permits employers to require recertification every 6 months.
The fact that South Lake asked for 30 days' notice and sometimes asked Dragonite to work around its schedule, while ultimately always granting a rescheduled request (
29 U.S.C. § 2612(e)(2).
As for the blackout period, Dragonite admitted that it had always been in effect and that she was given FMLA leave during the blackout period. (Dragonite Dep. 147-49.) There is no evidence that the blackout period ever affected her ability to take FMLA leave.
The only remaining basis for Dragonite's claim could be that South Lake fired her in order to prevent her from taking additional intermittent FMLA leave. As explained with regard to the discrimination and retaliation claims, Plaintiff has failed to raise a question of fact regarding whether she was terminated in response to her request for FMLA leave. Moreover, since there is no evidence that South Lake's policies discouraged Dragonite from taking FMLA, it had never denied a request, it had granted hundreds of leaves to Dragonite throughout her five-year employment, and the upcoming intermittent FMLA leaves were for minor amounts of time in relation to past requests, this claim is simply not plausible.
The Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA") prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee because that employee "associated with a person or group of persons who are disabled" and prohibits an employer from discharging an employee based on familial status, that is "the condition of one or more minors being domiciled with [] their parent." Minn. Stat. §§ 363A.03, subd. 18; 363A.08, subd. 2; 363A.15, subd. 2.
Dragonite asserts that South Lake fired her based on her familial status as a mother and in retaliation for associating with her three disabled children. The Court grants summary judgment on both claims.
There is no evidence that Defendant terminated Dragonite based on her familial status of having her minor children living in her home. Defendant knew that Dragonite had minor children throughout her employment. Plaintiff points to no evidence that childless employees were treated differently than she was.
Similarly, Dragonite's claim that she was fired based on her association on persons with disabilities — her three minor children — is unsupported. There is no evidence to indicate such a motivation for her termination. Additionally, Defendant was aware of her children's disabilities for many years before she was fired.
The Minnesota School Conference and Activities Leave Act requires employers to
Minn. Stat. § 181.9412, subd. 2.
South Lake includes a School Leave policy in its Handbook:
(2014 Handbook at 36.)
Dragonite argues that she requested School leave and often tried to reschedule events to accommodate South Lake's requests. However, when she was granted leave, South Lake sometimes mislabeled it as FMLA leave, reducing her available FMLA leave for serious medical issues.
The Court grants summary judgment on the School leave claim. Plaintiff admitted that she never went over her FMLA "bank," and thus, always had leave available. (Dragonite Dep. 123-24.) She also testified that she was never denied leave. Every time she requested a leave for any reason related to her children, she received it. South Lake's policies treat FMLA and School leave identically as far as the ability to take paid or unpaid time off. Thus, even if South Lake misclassified some of the School leave, there was no harm to Dragonite. Any alleged misclassification did not adversely impact her ability to take FMLA leave. She does not allege that she was ever denied leave that would have qualified under the School Leave Act. The classification of the leave as FMLA or School leave made no difference regarding whether she was paid. The alleged misclassification had no effect on Dragonite at all.
Because there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact as to any of Plaintiff's claims, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on all claims against it.
