Arucan v. Cambridge East Healthcare Center/Sava Seniorcare, LLC
2:16-cv-12726
E.D. Mich.Mar 30, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Johana Arucan, a pro se former physical therapy assistant at Cambridge East, treated the wrong patient on January 5, 2016 and reported the error the next day; Cambridge East terminated her on January 8, 2016.
- Administrator Paige VanTiem told Arucan she was terminated and asked her to leave; Arucan disputes whether she was told to leave and remained on the premises collecting belongings.
- Madison Heights officers John Heinrich and Rick Zamojski were called; they allege VanTiem told them Arucan had been fired and refused to leave; officers arrested Arucan for trespass, booked her, and she later pled no contest to trespassing.
- Arucan sued Cambridge East, VanTiem, Mocny, and the officers alleging employment discrimination (Title VII and related claims), wrongful termination, IIED, harassment, unlawful arrest, excessive force, and related constitutional violations.
- Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment to Cambridge East and the officers; the district court reviewed Arucan’s objections, found they raised no valid legal errors or preserved new arguments, and accepted the Report and Recommendation, granting summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment discrimination / prima facie case | Arucan contends termination was discriminatory and that others (younger/white/male) committed worse errors and were not fired | Cambridge East: Arucan identified no similarly situated employees who were treated differently; termination based on treating wrong patient | Summary judgment for Cambridge East; Arucan failed to show prima facie case or pretext |
| Wrongful termination / retaliation / other employment claims | Termination was pretextual and motivated by age, sex, race, ethnicity | Cambridge East: legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (treating wrong patient); no evidence of pretext | Summary judgment for Cambridge East; no genuine dispute of material fact |
| False arrest / unlawful seizure | Arucan asserts she was not told to leave and thus arrest lacked probable cause | Officers: VanTiem told them Arucan had been fired and refused to leave; under totality, officers had reasonable grounds for trespass arrest | Summary judgment for officers on false arrest; qualified immunity applies because probable cause existed or was reasonably believed |
| Excessive force / handcuffing claim | Handcuffing caused chest pain and injury; officers ignored complaints | Officers: took precautions, Arucan did not complain at scene or request medical care; plaintiff offers only subjective pain evidence | Summary judgment for officers; no evidence of objectively excessive force or physical injury required to survive summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (procedural requirement for de novo review of objections to magistrate judge report)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; materiality and genuine dispute principles)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party and summary judgment standards)
- White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 553 F.3d 381 (burden-shifting and pretext in employment discrimination cases)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity framework)
- Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U.S. 224 (scope of qualified immunity protection)
- Gardenhire v. Schubert, 205 F.3d 303 (probable cause and standards for arrest based on complainant’s report)
- Radvansky v. City of Olmsted Falls, 395 F.3d 291 (probable cause analysis when plaintiff disputes complainant’s account)
- Morrison v. Bd. of Trustees of Green Twp., 583 F.3d 394 (handcuffing excessive-force framework)