CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff Virginia Showers brings the above-captioned action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), 43 PA. STAT. ANN. § 951 et seq. Showers alleges that Endoscopy Center of Central Pennsylvania, LLC and Gastroenterology Associates of Central Pennsylvania, P.C. (collectively, "defendants") unlawfully discriminated against and terminated her on the basis of her disability. Presently before the court is defendants' motion (Doc. 15) for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant the motion.
From 2005 to 2011, Virginia Showers ("Showers") worked at Endoscopy Center of Central Pennsylvania, LLC ("ECCP") as a receptionist. (Doc. 16 ¶¶ 3, 97; Doc. 20 ¶¶ 3, 97). ECCP is a licensed ambulatory surgical center in Hershey, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 16 ¶¶ 123, 129; Doc. 20 ¶¶ 123, 129). Dr. William A. Rowe ("Dr. Rowe") and Dr. Robert F. Werkman ("Dr. Werkman") are the sole members and managers of ECCP. (Doc. 16 ¶ 128; Doc. 20 ¶ 128). Dr. Werkman also serves as the state-mandated Medical Director of ECCP. (Doc. 16 ¶ 133; Doc. 20 ¶ 133).
Prior to her employment at ECCP, Showers worked as a receptionist at Gastroenterology Associates of Central Pennsylvania, P.C. ("GACP"). (Doc. 16 ¶ 1; Doc. 20 ¶ 1). According to Dr. Rowe, who testified on behalf of ECCP and GACP as a corporate designee, GACP provides patient care in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. (Doc. 19-2, Rowe Dep. at 9:2-21, Feb. 20, 2014 ("Designee Dep.")). Dr. Rowe and Dr. Werkman are board members and 50-percent shareholders of GACP. (Doc. 16 ¶ 127; Doc. 20 ¶ 127). Victoria Farr ("Farr") served as the Center Director of ECCP, while Shirley Nye ("Nye") served as the Officer Manager of GACP. (Doc. 16 ¶ 130; Doc. 20 ¶ 130). In the area of human resources, Farr managed minor disciplinary issues at ECCP, and ECCP's Governing Board made major disciplinary decisions. (Doc. 16 ¶ 19; Doc.
ECCP and GACP are located in the same building and lease their offices from GI Properties of Hershey, LLP. (Doc. 16 ¶¶ 140-41; Doc. 20 ¶¶ 140-41). Dr. Rowe and Dr. Werkman own GI Properties. (Doc. 16 ¶ 140; Doc. 20 ¶ 140). Defendants state that ECCP and GACP have separate reception and work areas (Doc. 16 ¶ 141), while Showers posits that ECCP and GACP share bathrooms, a locker room, and a lunchroom (Doc. 20 ¶ 141). ECCP outsources certain services to GACP pursuant to a management agreement, including billing, bookkeeping, and the Medical Director position. (Doc. 16 ¶¶ 134, 142; Doc. 20 ¶¶ 134, 142). ECCP and GACP were separately established approximately two years apart. (Doc. 16 ¶¶ 125-26; Doc. 20 ¶¶ 125-26). Dr. Rowe and Dr. Werkman refer patients to surgical centers other than ECCP but perform approximately 90 percent of their procedures at ECCP. (Doc. 16 ¶¶ 138-39; Doc. 20 ¶¶ 138-39; Designee Dep. at 41:15-42:15).
ECCP terminated Showers's employment in June 2011. (Doc. 16 ¶ 97; Doc. 20 ¶ 97). At the time of her termination, ECCP had six full-time employees and five part-time employees. (Doc. 16 ¶ 131; Doc. 20 ¶ 131). At that same time, GACP had ten full-time employees and no part-time employees. (Doc. 16 ¶ 131; Doc. 20 ¶ 131). Showers does not allege that GACP discriminated against her (Doc. 16 ¶ 146; Doc. 20 ¶ 146), although she notes that Dr. Rowe and Dr. Werkman maintain control over major personnel decisions for both ECCP and GACP (Doc. 20 ¶ 147).
Showers's job responsibilities at ECCP included greeting patients, answering phone calls, and maintaining the confidentiality of patient and employee information. (Doc. 16 ¶ 4; Doc. 20 ¶ 4). Her regular work hours were from 6:45 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. (Doc. 16 ¶ 3; Doc. 20 ¶ 3). As Center Director, Farr supervised Showers. (Doc. 16 ¶ 5; Doc. 20 ¶ 5). Showers's employment at ECCP was governed by an employee handbook that provided applicable policies and procedures. (Doc. 16 ¶ 7; Doc. 20 ¶ 7). With respect to ECCP's attendance and call-off policy, the handbook stated that "[i]f for any unforeseen reason the employee will be late or needs to report off work, he/she should do so by calling the Center Director [Farr] at least one hour prior to the start of the work shift. The Center Director can be called at home, cell or work." (Doc. 19-1, Showers Dep. Ex. 2 at 17, Jan. 28, 2014 ("Showers Dep.")). Showers contends that, notwithstanding this policy, Farr instructed Showers not to call her before 8:00 a.m. on Farr's days off. (Doc. 20 ¶¶ 11-12, 74, 77). Farr remained the designated contact person unless she notified the staff that another employee would serve as the contact person for a given day. (Doc. 16 ¶ 77; Doc. 20 ¶ 77).
Showers had multiple disciplinary issues during her tenure at ECCP. In 2005, Showers received an oral warning in connection with a HIPPA violation. (Doc. 16 ¶ 14; Doc. 20 ¶ 14). The following year, Showers violated ECCP's confidentiality policy by disclosing a former ECCP employee's contact information. (Doc. 16 ¶ 15; Doc. 20 ¶ 15). In 2007, Showers violated ECCP's call-off policy by failing to notify Farr of an intended absence. (Doc. 16 ¶ 17; Doc. 20 ¶ 17). This disciplinary warning stated that a failure to improve would result in dismissal. (Doc. 16 ¶ 18; Doc. 20 ¶ 18; Showers Dep. Ex. 5). Showers also received annual performance appraisals. (Doc. 16 ¶ 23; Doc. 20 ¶ 23). The Governing Board generally concluded that Showers's performance was satisfactory,
In January 2011, Showers was diagnosed with colon cancer. (Doc. 16 ¶ 31; Doc. 20 ¶ 31). The cancer was surgically removed as part of a curative resection. (Doc. 16 ¶ 31; Doc. 20 ¶ 31). Showers took a medical leave of absence for approximately six weeks before returning to work on a part-time basis. (Doc. 16 ¶ 34; Doc. 20 ¶ 34). She returned to work full-time, without any medical restrictions, in late February 2011. (Doc. 16 ¶ 34; Doc. 20 ¶ 34). Showers asserts, however, that Farr had pressured her to return to work early on a full-time basis. (Doc. 20 ¶¶ 37-38). In the evening of February 23, 2011 Showers's husband called and left three messages on Dr. Rowe's cell phone after obtaining his number from an employee contact list that had Showers brought home. (Doc. 16 ¶ 60; Doc. 20 ¶ 60; Showers Dep. at 114:2-7). Showers testified that he did so because Showers had been returning home upset due to Farr's treatment of her. (Showers Dep. at 131:19-132:10). As a result of this incident, the Governing Board issued Showers a written warning for insubordination by disclosing purportedly confidential information. (Doc. 16 ¶¶ 63, 65; Doc. 20 ¶¶ 63, 65; Showers Dep. Ex. 9). Showers maintains that there was no policy related to the employee contact list and disputes the validity of the warning. (Doc. 20 ¶ 64). Showers's cancer is in remission and requires no further treatment other than annual check-ups. (Doc. 16 ¶ 39; Doc. 20 ¶ 39).
In April 2011, after experiencing back pain and weakness in her legs, Showers was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome ("GBS"), which required hospitalization. (Doc. 16 ¶¶ 40, 42; Doc. 20 ¶¶ 40, 42). The Governing Board granted Showers's request for an additional medical leave. (Doc. 16 ¶ 49; Doc. 20 ¶ 49). After recovering from GBS, Showers's physician authorized her to return to work full-time and without restrictions on May 16, 2011. (Doc. 16 ¶ 52; Doc. 20 ¶ 52). Showers contends that—as evidenced by an internal email among Dr. Rowe, Dr. Werkman, and Farr—the Governing Board had concerns about Showers's ability to perform her job duties upon her return from GBS and about whether Showers would be a liability to ECCP. (Doc. 20 ¶ 54; Doc. 19-3, Farr Dep. Ex. 21, Oct. 24, 2013 ("Farr Dep.")). After returning from her medical leave, Showers alleges that Farr adopted a more harassing nature toward Showers and constantly criticized her performance. (Doc. 20 ¶¶ 67, 105). Showers also avers that Farr frequently called her regarding when Showers would return to work. (Id. ¶¶ 105, 110).
On June 14, 2011, Showers woke up feeling ill. (Doc. 16 ¶ 86; Doc. 20 ¶ 86). She threw up while driving to work and returned home. (Doc. 16 ¶ 87; Doc. 20 ¶¶ 87, 90). Between 6:15 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., after returning home, Showers called and left a message with a part-time nurse regarding her absence. (Doc. 16 ¶ 90; Doc. 20 ¶ 90). According to defendants, Farr was scheduled to work that day. (Doc. 16 ¶ 82). Showers believed that Farr was not scheduled to work on June 14, 2011, however, and that the nurse was the appropriate employee to contact in Farr's absence. (Doc. 20 ¶¶ 82, 85, 89).
The Governing Board convened on June 16, 2011 to discuss Showers's purported failure to comply with ECCP's call-off policy two days prior. (Doc. 16 ¶ 94). The Board unanimously decided to terminate Showers. (Doc. 16 ¶ 96). In so doing, it considered Showers's prior disciplinary warnings. (Doc. 16 ¶ 95; Doc. 20) Farr informed Showers of her termination on June 17, 2011. (Doc. 16 ¶ 97; Doc. 20
On April 23, 2013, Showers commenced the instant action. (Doc. 1). She brings one claim for discrimination on the basis of disability under the ADA and one claim for discrimination on the basis of disability under the PHRA.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). A factual dispute is "material" if it might affect the outcome of the action under applicable law, and is "genuine" only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis that would allow a reasonable factfinder to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The burden of proof is on the non-moving party to come forth with "affirmative evidence, beyond the allegations of the pleadings," in support of its right to relief. Pappas v. City of Lebanon, 331 F.Supp.2d 311, 315 (M.D.Pa. 2004); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). "Such affirmative evidence—regardless of whether it is direct or circumstantial—must amount to more than a scintilla, but may amount to less (in the evaluation of the court) than a preponderance." Saldana v. Kmart Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2001) (quoting Williams v. Borough of W. Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 460-61 (3d Cir. 1989)). This evidence must be adequate, as a matter of law, to sustain a judgment in favor of the non-moving party on the claims. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250-57, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a), (e). Only if this threshold is met may the cause of action proceed. Pappas, 331 F.Supp.2d at 315.
In support of their motion for summary judgment, defendants contend that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear this matter because neither ECCP nor GACP employs the requisite number of individuals to render either liable under the ADA, that ECCP and GACP should not be consolidated to constitute a single employer, that Showers's claims against GACP fail because GACP did not employ her or discriminate against her, that Showers is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA or PHRA and cannot establish her prima facie case under either statute, and that Showers has not shown that the reasons for her termination were pretextual. The court will address each of these arguments seriatim.
The ADA provides that no employer "shall discriminate on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of
It is undisputed that when Showers was terminated, ECCP had six full-time employees and five part-time employees, while GACP had only ten full-time employees. (Doc. 16 ¶ 131). Defendants initially contend that, because neither defendant had at least fifteen employees, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Showers's ADA claim and therefore must divest itself of supplemental jurisdiction over her PHRA claim. (Doc. 18 at 16-17). Defendants misread controlling authority. As the Third Circuit made clear in Nesbit v. Gears Unlimited, Inc., the fifteen-employee numerosity requirement in Title VII actions is not jurisdictional; rather, it is a substantive element of a Title VII claim. 347 F.3d 72, 83 (3d Cir. 2003).
Under certain circumstances, two nominally separate companies that each employ fewer than fifteen individuals may be combined as a "single employer." When two entities are consolidated in this manner, they share all liabilities. See In re Owens Corning, 419 F.3d 195, 205 (3d Cir. 2005). Substantive consolidation is proper (1) when a business divided itself into separate entities for the purposes of evading liability under anti-discrimination laws; (2) when a parent company directed the discriminatory actions of a subsidiary or when one company ordered the discriminatory actions of the other; or (3) when the "operational entanglement" of two companies is sufficiently pronounced. Nesbit, 347 F.3d at 85-88. Factors relevant to the degree of operational entanglement include (1) the identity of ownership, management, and business functions, including the way in which personnel matters are handled; (2) whether the companies present themselves to third parties as a single business; (3) whether the parent company covers the salaries, expenses, or losses of the subsidiary; and (4) whether one company conducts business solely with the other company. Id. at 87. No single factor is dispositive of whether two entities should be treated as a single employer. See id. ("We adopt an intentionally open-ended, equitable inquiry . . . to determine when substantively to consolidate two entities."). Courts in this circuit apply the foregoing test in the context of ADA claims. See, e.g., Kelly v. Horizon Med. Corp., No.
In Nesbit, the Third Circuit declined to consolidate two automobile manufacturing companies under the single employer test. Vaughan Winter, Sr. ("Winter") partially owned both companies and monitored operations at each. Nesbit, 347 F.3d at 75. The companies were located in separate buildings and handled their own financial matters but coordinated with respect to hiring decisions. Id. Winter provided input regarding staffing decisions at one of the companies, but personnel decisions were ultimately the prerogative of the day-to-day management at that company. Id. The court found that the companies were not sufficiently interrelated to warrant substantive consolidation. While the companies shared ownership and jointly recruited job applicants, they observed corporate formalities, maintained separate payrolls, did not interact with third parties as a single employer, and did not transact business exclusively with each other. Id. at 88-89. "In the absence of more significant operational entanglement," the court held, "common ownership and de minimis coordination in hiring are insufficient bases to disregard the separate corporate forms of [the two companies]." Id. at 89.
Whether a corporation is an employer within the meaning of the ADA is generally a matter of law for the court to determine. See Tokash v. Foxco Ins. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 3:10-CV-872, 2012 WL 1677437, at *9 (M.D.Pa. May 14, 2012) (applying the single employer test in the context of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act). When the undisputed facts reasonably lead to conflicting conclusions, however, "the determination of the employment status is a question of fact for the fact finder to resolve." Id. (quoting Alba v. Hous. Auth. of Pittston, 400 F.Supp.2d 685, 692 (M.D.Pa.2005)). Showers concedes that ECCP and GACP were separately established, that each employs fewer than fifteen individuals, and that the companies did not divide themselves into separate entities for the purposes of evading anti-discrimination laws. (Doc. 16 ¶¶ 125-26, 131, 145; Doc 20 ¶¶ 125-26, 131, 145).
The record also reveals a significant degree of interconnectedness in terms of employee benefits. Indeed, Dr. Rowe and Dr. Workman make benefits-related decisions for both companies. (Id. at 61:24-62:4). Defendants further testified that, pursuant to a management agreement between ECCP and GACP,
Common ownership, management, and benefits tend to support substantive consolidation of related employers. Tokash, 2012 WL 1677437, at *8 (citing DeAngelo v. DentalEZ, Inc., No. 09-535, 2011 WL 1496513, at *4 (E.D.Pa. Apr. 15, 2011)). In Tokash, for example, the court found sufficient operational entanglement when, inter alia, two companies were owned by the same family, the same individual served as
Showers also points to evidence that, whether intentionally or not, ECCP and GACP present themselves as a single entity. First, ECCP and GACP are located in the same building.
Second, the companies' online presence could lead third parties to perceive them as a single entity. ECCP does not maintain its own website; rather, GACP's website contained a page for ECCP, which included information about directions, endoscopic procedures, and accreditation. (Designee Dep. Exs. 5-6). Defendants testified that they provided this information on GACP's website "solely as a courtesy" to their patients because "we refer most of our patients from [GACP] for their procedures at ECCP." (Id. at 24:19-25:22). Cf. Gift, 881 F.Supp.2d at 693 (finding "some evidence" that two companies presented themselves as a single entity on the grounds that one identified the other on its website as one of its offices). More significantly, each ECCP and GACP employee was assigned an email address with the domain "@giacp.com." (Designee Dep. at 46:14-22). Cf. Tokash, 2012 WL 1677437, at *8 (finding it "compelling" under this operational entanglement factor that the employees of two companies used the same email domain, "which could well communicate to the outside world that [plaintiff] was an employee of [the affiliated company]"); Blakeman, 2013 WL 3503165, at *10 (noting that, while the evidence ultimately did not imply that two companies presented themselves as a single entity, the fact that the corporate officers of one used the email domain of the other offered opposing evidence).
With respect to the third operational entanglement factor, Showers has not adduced evidence that ECCP or GACP covers the salaries or expenses of the other. Indeed, defendants present testimony that each company has had separate lines of credit and that one company's insolvency would not be fatal to the other. (Designee Dep. at 73:5-74:3).
Finally, a reasonable juror could find a significant degree of exclusivity between ECCP and GACP. Defendants acknowledge that, with the exception of a nonemployee physician who performed work at ECCP for approximately one year in the past, Dr. Rowe and Dr. Werkman have performed or supervised every procedure at ECCP since its inception.
Unlike the companies at issue in Nesbit, ECCP and GACP have increased overlap in management and personnel decisions, share the same building, are more likely to be treated as a single unit by third parties, and exhibit a greater degree of operational entanglement. Accepting that certain out-sourcing arrangements between ECCP and GACP are similar to the arrangements among other endoscopy centers and endoscopy center management companies in the industry (Doc. 16 ¶¶ 134, 143), the court cannot ignore the considerable other ways in which ECCP and GACP, in particular, are related. While ECCP and GACP operate as separate entities in many respects—and thus a reasonable juror could conclude that they are not sufficiently interconnected to form a single employer—their interactions are far from de minimis (cf. Doc. 23 at 13).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Showers, the court finds a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether ECCP and GACP should be consolidated as a single employer for the purposes of the ADA. When so consolidated, the total number of employees at the relevant time would exceed fifteen, satisfying the ADA's numerosity requirement. (See Doc. 16 ¶ 131). Accordingly, the court will deny summary judgment to the extent that defendants argue that neither ECCP nor GACP is an "employer" within the meaning of the ADA.
Defendants argue that Showers's ADA claim against GACP fails because Showers
Defendants argue that Showers cannot establish her prima facie case under the ADA because she is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA and because she has not demonstrated that ECCP terminated her on account of any disability. (Doc. 18 at 20-22). Defendants further contend that, even if Showers could satisfy her prima facie case, she has not shown that ECCP's justification for her termination was pretext for discrimination. (Id. at 22-24). Showers counters that she had an actual disability under the ADA and that ECCP regarded her as disabled. (Doc. 19 at 16-19). She also asserts that she has met her prima facie case under the ADA and that the proffered reasons for her termination were pretextual. (Id. at 19-23).
When, as here, alleged discrimination is
To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA or PHRA, a plaintiff must demonstrate "(1) that [s]he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) that [s]he is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodations, and (3) that [s]he was subjected to an adverse employment decision as a result of discrimination." Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, 602 F.3d 177, 185 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 306 (3d Cir. 1999)); accord Buskirk v. Apollo Metals, 307 F.3d 160, 166 & n. 1 (3d Cir. 2002) (noting that courts generally construe the PHRA in a manner consistent with federal anti-discrimination statutes). Defendants argue that Showers has not satisfied the first and third elements of her prima facie case. (Doc. 18 at 20-22).
The ADA defines a "disability" as "[1] a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; [2] a record of such an impairment; or [3] being regarded as having such an impairment." 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1).
There can be little doubt that a medical condition as serious as cancer may substantially limit major life activities. See Unangst, 2012 WL 931130, at *4 ("The ADA was clearly intended by Congress to protect cancer patients from disability discrimination."). In the instant matter, defendants concede that Showers was diagnosed with colon cancer in January 2011 and underwent laparoscopic surgery to remove the tumor as part of a curative resection. (Doc. 16 ¶ 31). Defendants also acknowledge that, as a result of her operation, Showers was on medical leave for approximately six weeks before her physician cleared her to return to work on a part-time basis. (Id. ¶ 34). Since February 2011, Showers's colon cancer has been in remission; she does not require additional treatment other than yearly check-ups. (Id. ¶ 39). Defendants contend that because Showers had recovered from her cancer surgery at the time of her termination—and because Showers's physician had confirmed that she could return to work without restrictions after her subsequent recovery from GBS (id. ¶ 52)—Showers was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. (Doc. 18 at 21).
The 2008 amendments to the ADA provide that "[a]n impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active." 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(D). Cancer is such an impairment. Indeed, the legislative history of the ADAAA indicates that the Act intended to counter earlier cases that had "discounted the impact of an impairment [such as cancer] that may be in remission as too short-lived to be substantially limiting." 29 C.F.R. § 1630 app. (alteration in original).
In the case sub judice, ECCP terminated Showers approximately four months after Showers returned to work following her surgery. Although Showers's cancer is presently in remission, it could substantially limit major life activities when active. Cf. Unangst, 2012 WL 931130, at *4 (determining that plaintiff's cancer, while in remission at the time of her termination, constituted a disability under the ADA); Chalfont v. U.S. Electrodes, No. 10-2929, 2010 WL 5341846, at *9 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 28, 2010) (finding that plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a disability when he averred that his cancer, while in remission, was a lifelong condition); Katz v. Adecco USA, Inc., 845 F.Supp.2d 539, 548 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (citing cases that have reasoned that cancer in remission may nevertheless qualify as a disability under the ADA). The court finds that Showers presents a genuine issue regarding whether she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA and will therefore decline to dismiss her ADA claim on this basis.
The parties do not separately consider whether Showers has demonstrated that she was disabled within the meaning of the PHRA. While the PHRA's definition of disability largely tracked the ADA's prior to the ADAAA, Pennsylvania has not similarly expanded the meaning of disability under the PHRA. Rubano v. Farrell Area Sch. Dist., 991 F.Supp.2d 678, 689 n. 7 (W.D.Pa.2014). In disability discrimination
With respect to Showers's actual disability claim, the PHRA contains no provision analogous to the ADAAA's rule of construction regarding impairments that are episodic or in remission. See 43 PA. CONS.STAT. § 954(p.1). Showers has not proffered evidence that her cancer or GBS substantially limited any major life activities at the time of her termination and concedes that neither illness significantly affected her as of May 2011. (See Showers Dep. at 66:11-67:18, 177:11-19). Accordingly, the court concludes that Showers does not present a genuine issue regarding whether she was disabled or had a record of a disability
Showers's "regarded as" disability claim under the PHRA also cannot survive summary judgment. A claim that an employer regarded an employee as disabled focuses on the "reactions and perceptions" of the employer; the employee need not have an actual impairment to state a disability discrimination claim. Kelly v. Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102, 108-09 (3d Cir. 1996). An employer's mere awareness of an impairment, however, is insufficient to establish that it regarded the employee as disabled. Id. at 109. Prior to the ADAAA, to establish that her employer regarded her as disabled, a plaintiff had to show that (1) she had an impairment that did not substantially limit major life activities but was treated by her employer as having such an impairment; (2) she had an impairment that substantially limited major life activities as a result of the attitudes of others regarding the impairment; or (3) she had no impairment but was treated by her employer as having a substantially limiting impairment. Taylor v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., 177 F.3d 180, 187 (3d Cir. 1999); see also Fallecker v. Slippery Rock Univ., State Sys. of Higher Educ., No. 1929 C.D. 2007, 2008 WL 9399222, at *6 (Pa.Commw.Ct. July 28, 2008) ("Under the correct [PHRA] standard, an employee may be characterized as disabled under the `regarded as' disabled prong . . . if the employee is able to establish that the employer regarded the employee as having an impairment that substantially limits any major life activity regardless as to whether that perception is accurate.").
The ADAAA broadened the scope of disability by providing that a plaintiff may establish that her employer regarded her as disabled merely by showing that the employer subjected her to an adverse employment action on the basis of an actual or perceived impairment; whether the employer believed that any impairment substantially limited the plaintiff's major life activities is no longer dispositive under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A); see also Hohider v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 574 F.3d 169, 188 n. 17 (3d Cir.2009). The PHRA was not similarly amended and
Showers contends that ECCP regarded her as disabled because it was aware that she had been diagnosed with colon cancer and GBS, because Farr expressed some concern about whether Showers would be able to perform her job duties or be a liability after recovering from GBS, and because Farr suggested that ECCP evaluate Showers regularly upon her return. (Doc. 19 at 18-19). This evidence would not permit a reasonable juror to conclude that ECCP perceived Showers's medical conditions as substantially limiting any major life activities. While Farr initially recommended that Showers be evaluated on a weekly and then monthly basis due to concerns regarding her data entry and motor skills (Farr Dep. at 81:7-84:2, Ex. 21), ECCP did not act on this recommendation (id. at 81:24-82:7). Farr testified that she proposed these evaluations based on her prior experiences with employees returning from leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. (Id. at 82:8-83:10; see also Werkman Dep. at 64:16-66:3 ("[T]here was no need to do anything out of the ordinary in terms of allowing Ms. Showers to return to work or create some special program for her for continued follow-up. We treated her like any other employee in the practice.")). Nor did ECCP require Showers to undergo a formal, independent evaluation. Dr. Rowe explained that ECCP ultimately determined that no such evaluation was necessary in light of the medical release from Showers's physician. (Doc. 19-4, Rowe Dep. at 84:16-84:22, Oct. 17, 2013 ("Rowe Dep.")).
Showers does not clearly identify which major life activity ECCP perceived that her impairment substantially limited in June 2011. To the extent that Showers relies on the major life activity of "working,"
The parties do not contest whether Showers suffered an adverse employment action when ECCP terminated her in June 2011 but dispute whether Showers has demonstrated a causal connection between her termination and her disability.
The record contains scant evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Showers's disability was causally related to her termination. Showers concedes that Dr. Rowe and Dr. Werkman did not discriminate against her; she ascribes discriminatory animus only to Farr. (Showers Dep. at 252:7-21).
In light of the weak evidence linking her termination with any disability discrimination, the court is skeptical that Showers presents a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether her disability played a role in her termination. Because the court ultimately finds that Showers has failed to demonstrate that ECCP's proffered reasons for her termination were pretextual, it will assume, arguendo, that Showers has satisfied her prima facie case and proceed to the next step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis.
Assuming that Showers has established her prima facie case of disability discrimination, the burden of production shifts to defendants to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for their decision to terminate Showers. Specifically, defendants must introduce evidence that, "taken as true, would permit the conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for the unfavorable employment decision." Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 763.
Defendants have satisfied their burden. ECCP asserts that it terminated Showers on June 17, 2011 for failing to report to work on June 14, 2011 or to inform ECCP of her absence pursuant to company policy. (See Showers Dep. Ex. 20). In so doing, ECCP took into account previous disciplinary violations. (Doc. 16 ¶¶ 94-95). This justification, if true, is a proper basis for termination. See Mathias v. Allegheny Valley Sch., 560 F.Supp.2d 354, 360 (E.D.Pa.2008) (concluding that the employer, which asserted that it terminated plaintiff for failing to report to work or notify her supervisor that she would be absent, proffered a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment
After the employer has articulated a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment decision, the employee may defeat summary judgment by identifying evidence "from which a factfinder could reasonably either (1) disbelieve the employer's articulated legitimate reasons; or (2) believe that an invidious discriminatory reason was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employer's action." Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 764. A plaintiff cannot discredit an employer's proffered basis for termination merely by showing that the employment decision was wrong or mistaken. Id. at 765. Rather, the plaintiff must show that the reasons for the employment decision are beset by "weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions" such that a reasonable fact-finder could find the justification "unworthy of credence." Id. (quoting Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 531 (3d Cir.1992)). This burden is difficult to meet. Id.
In the instant matter, Showers maintains that she has identified evidence sufficient to discredit ECCP's proffered reason for her termination. She argues that Farr "was looking for a reason to get rid of Showers" upon her return from GBS, that Farr "manipulated" the Governing Board's decision to terminate Showers, and that Showers's performance became an issue only after she returned from medical leave. (Doc. 19 at 22). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Showers, these arguments fall short of demonstrating pretext.
As the court suggested in connection with Showers's prima facie case, the record would not permit a reasonable juror to infer that Farr sought to terminate Showers upon her return from GBS. Showers centers her pretext argument on her belief that Farr sought to dismiss her because she viewed Showers as a liability.
Showers also contends that Farr improperly influenced the Governing Board's decision-making process by failing to consult Showers about her absence and by presenting her version of the events to the Board. (Id. ¶ 120). To be sure, the evidence shows that Farr did not inquire why Showers failed to contact Farr about her absence on June 14, 2011. (Farr Dep. at 118:10-25). And Dr. Werkman acknowledges that he considered the facts regarding Showers's absence as they were presented to him at the termination meeting. (Werkman Dep. at 79:2-16). An employee cannot discredit an employment decision solely by showing that the employer did not review all information potentially relevant to that decision, so long as the employer's decision was nondiscriminatory and made in good faith. See Parker v. Verizon Pa., Inc., 309 Fed.Appx. 551, 558 (3d Cir.2009) (nonprecedential); Garvin v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 5:08-CV-3758, 2010 WL 1948593, at *7 (E.D.Pa. May 10, 2010). In the instant matter, Dr. Werkman testified that he had been made aware that Showers notified another ECCP employee about her absence but explained that this effort did not influence his decision to terminate Showers. (Werkman Dep. at 73:7-20). Both Dr. Werkman and Farr testified that the Governing Board did not consider Showers's health issues in connection with the Board's termination decision. (Id. at 90:15-21; Farr Dep. at 116:24-117:2).
In any event, the record reveals that—contrary to Showers's initial belief—Farr was in fact scheduled to work on June 14, 2011 and therefore was the appropriate employee to notify regarding absences. (Showers Dep. Ex. 19). Showers testified that while she reviewed the staff schedule before she left work on June 13, 2011 and believed that Farr was off the following day, she was apparently mistaken in that belief. (Id. at 199:16-200:19).
In Oliver—a case with facts analogous to the instant matter—Phyllis Oliver ("Oliver") worked at Clinical Practices of the University of Pennsylvania ("CPUP") as a patient service representative. Id. at 441. Oliver was diagnosed with colon cancer in 2007 and required a medical leave of absence to treat her illness. Id. at 442. In September 2008, one of Oliver's supervisors terminated her for allegedly making a patient upset. Id. Oliver had previously received verbal and writing warnings for violations of CPUP's policies, including CPUP's attendance policy. Id.
Oliver alleged that her termination was pretext for discrimination on the basis of race, age, and disability. Id. at 442, 449-52, 453. With respect to her disability discrimination claim, Oliver argued, inter alia, that CPUP's reasons for her termination was contradicted by prior performance reviews, which indicated that she had excellent customer service skills and acted professionally. Id. at 450. The court rejected this argument, holding that when considering the totality of Oliver's disciplinary record, a reasonable juror could not find that CPUP's reasons for her termination were pretextual. Id.
The court acknowledges that whether Showers's allegedly declining performance played a role in her termination is not clear from the record. The Governing Board minutes from June 16, 2011 reference, among other factors, Showers's "declining job performance since returning back to work May 16, 2011." (Farr Dep. Ex. 29). Farr explained that these performance issues included her no-show on June 14, 2011 as well as an incident in which Showers purportedly interrupted a conversation between GACP and a patient.
Notwithstanding this potential inconsistency, Showers must show that each of ECCP's reasons for her termination was pretextual. Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 764. There is little doubt that Showers's absence on June 14, 2011 was the primary reason that ECCP proffered for her dismissal. Because Showers has not identified evidence from which a reasonable juror could either discredit ECCP's position that Showers's purported failure to comply with ECCP's attendance policy on June 14, 2011 resulted in her termination, or conclude that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of ECCP's termination decision, she has not met her burden of demonstrating pretext. That ECCP's decision to terminate Showers may have been unwise or imprudent—given her apparent good-faith effort to notify ECCP of her absence—is not enough to survive summary judgment. Id. at 765; see also Werner, 2012 WL 2979026, at *2 ("[T]he Plaintiff must do more than to show that the Defendant was `wrong or mistaken' in terminating her employment." (citation omitted)).
For all of the foregoing reasons, the court will grant defendants' motion for summary judgment. An appropriate order will issue.
AND NOW, this 7th day of November, 2014, upon consideration of the motion (Doc. 15) for summary judgment by defendants Endoscopy Center of Central Pennsylvania, LLC and Gastroenterology Associates of Central Pennsylvania, P.C., and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:
