Tough Day for Plaintiff Claims

Today, I learned about three different lawsuits, each of which were rejected by the courts on appeal. Tough day for plaintiffs; good day for employers. These courts rejected a claim by an employee who soiled herself after being denied a restroom break supported by medical documentation, by a police chief who was allegedly reported neglect of a mentally ill patient to his supervisor and by a medical resident who brought an ADA claim after a local hospital refused to reinstate him after he had been terminated for diverting controlled substances for his personal use even though he had completed a drug rehabilitation program.

This morning, the Sixth Circuit released two employment decisions. In the first, the plaintiff brought suit under Title VII for discrimination and for the intention infliction of emotional distress when her supervisor would not permit her to take a restroom break despite her medical condition. Worthy v. Materials Processing, Inc. No. 10-1138 (6th Cir. 7/27/11). The plaintiff had previously reported her medical condition to the HR Department, but it neglected to inform her supervisor that she would require restroom breaks. When the plaintiff told her supervisor that she needed the break because of a medical condition, he refused to relieve her on the production line. Accordingly, she ultimately soiled herself. A union grievance was filed, the HR Manager apologized for not passing on the information and the plaintiff was given two days of paid leave. Dissatisfied, she filed a Charge of Discrimination and, ultimately, a lawsuit. Oddly, there is no mention of the ADA in the Court’s decision. The Court concluded that Title VII only applied to material adverse employment actions, like promotions, hiring, demotions and firing, and not to employment decisions which “do not change [an employee’s] salary, benefits, title, or work hours,” even if they make the employee’s job “significantly more difficult.” It rejected the emotional distress claim on the grounds that the supervisor’s undisputedly petty and cruel behavior was not objectively outrageous and “utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”

In the second opinion released this morning, the Sixth Circuit rejected the ADA claim of a medical resident because his evidence of pretext was based on personal conjecture and speculation. Hall v. Ohio Health Corp., No. 10-3327 (6th Cir. 7/27/2011). The plaintiff had been terminated from two prior residency programs before beginning at Doctor’s Hospital. While there, he had been placed on academic probation and warned about inappropriate behavior (such as engaging in personal conversations when he was supposed to monitoring patients, inattention to detail, self-prescribing pain medication for a foot condition, disappearing during rounds, being unprepared, etc.). Finally, he was caught diverting pain medication to himself (by prescribing the medication to a patient and then taking it for himself). When confronted, he never admitted to having an addiction. Fed up, the Hospital terminated him, but advised him to reapply if he fixed his problems. After completing an addition program, the plaintiff reapplied to OhioHealth, but was rejected. The lawsuit followed. The Court found that the plaintiff could not show that the Hospital’s explanation was pretextual: his long history of unprofessional and unethical behavior, lack of requisite medical knowledge and his prior supervisor’s unwillingness to work with him again. Any evidence that he was rejected solely because of a former addiction was based only on his personal belief instead of evidence.

Finally, the Franklin County Court of Appeals rejected the wrongful discharge claim of a police chief who claimed that he was terminated for reporting an investigation into the neglect of a mental patient to the institution’s executive officer. Boyd v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health, 2011-Ohio-3596. In particular, the plaintiff was investigating how a mental patient had been sent to a medical appointment without a mandatory police escort, which enabled the patient to escape. The incident had been reviewed by two institutional committees, but he continued to investigate – allegedly without the knowledge or approval of his boss. He claims that he was fired for reporting the investigation to her – allegedly in violation of O.R.C. § 5101.61(E), which “prohibits an employer from "discharg[ing], demot[ing], transfer[ring], prepar[ing] a negative work performance evaluation, or reduc[ing] benefits, pay, or work privileges, or tak[ing] any other action detrimental to an employee or in any way retaliat[ing] against an employee as a result of the employee's having filed a report [to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services] under this section." Problem was, he never reported anything to ODJFS; he only reported the investigation to his boss. He asserted that his boss had authority to resolve any systematic problems with patient neglect and reports to her should be as protected as reports to ODJFS. However, the Court refused to expand public policy as reflected by the General Assembly in the statute.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.