2013 WL 1149920
D. Md.2013Background
- Plaintiff Steven Bennett, a Maryland resident, sues Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic States, alleging employment discrimination.
- Bennett was hired in 1998 as a lead nurse at the Camp Springs facility and was supervised by Suzanne McKay-Mahaffey; he received a positive 2006 performance appraisal.
- In January 2008, Bennett mistakenly injected insulin instead of performing a TB test; the patient was not harmed; Bennett discussed the incident with McKay-Mahaffey and agreed to see a doctor to rule out a medical condition.
- Following medical evaluation in February 2008, Bennett was placed on Level 4 corrective action and consideration was given to reassigning him to a sedentary message management nurse position; in March 2008, the scheduling of a patient for care led to Fields and McKay-Mahaffey deeming Bennett a risk, resulting in administrative leave and firing or resignation options.
- Bennett filed a September 2008 EEOC charge alleging discrimination based on age and disability; his charge did not allege a request for a reasonable accommodation.
- Bennett filed suit in September 2010 asserting ADA claims (disparate treatment and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation) and an ADEA claim; after discovery, Kaiser moved for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over reasonable accommodation claim | Accommodations claim reasonably related to EEOC charge. | Claim not reasonably related to EEOC charge; lacks jurisdiction. | Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the accommodation claim. |
| ADEA disparate treatment viability | Age was a motivating factor in termination. | No direct evidence; no but-for causation. | Court grants summary judgment in favor of defendants on the ADEA claim. |
| ADA disparate treatment viability | Discharged due to disability; evidence of discrimination. | Discipline and termination based on patient-safety-related errors; legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons. | Court grants summary judgment in favor of defendants on the ADA disparate treatment claim. |
| Reasonable accommodation under ADA | Defendant failed to engage in interactive process and accommodate walking impairment. | No duty to accommodate for 'regarded as' claims; or no sufficient evidence of a needed accommodation. | Reasonable accommodation claim would fail even if jurisdiction existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. American Postal Workers Union, 192 F.3d 417 (4th Cir.1999) (plaintiff bears burden to show subject-matter jurisdiction via extrinsic materials)
- Mayers v. Wash. Adventist Hosp., 131 F.Supp.2d 743 (D.Md.2001) (EEOC charge specificity controls scope of suit)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (Supreme Court 2002) (demands a strict definition of disability prior to ADA amendments)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court 1999) (regarded-as disability framework; major life activities concept)
- Boitnott v. Corning Inc., 669 F.3d 172 (4th Cir.2012) (regarded-as claims require broad working-restriction evidence)
- Hadrosek v. Paging Network, Inc., 1998 WL 390579 (4th Cir.1998) (supervisor perceptions matter in performance determinations)
- Reynolds v. Am. Nat. Red Cross, 701 F.3d 143 (4th Cir.2012) (ADAAA retroactivity and application to pre-2009 discrimination claims)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court 2009) (but-for causation standard for age discrimination under the ADEA)