Nidal Chatila v. Scottsdale Healthcare Hospital
701 F. App'x 639
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Nadil Chatila worked as a pharmacy technician at Scottsdale Healthcare Hospitals and, during her last three months, committed six medication errors, including at least one potentially life‑threatening error.
- On October 22, 2013, Chatila met with her supervisor, received a final written warning, and purportedly resigned during that meeting.
- The night before the meeting Chatila emailed that “It may be a good idea for me to take [FMLA] to recover from the emotional factors that have put impact on my illness.”
- Chatila also wrote on the final written warning: “Need to take full [FMLA]/I feel the medication and illness needs working on.”
- Chatila sued under the FMLA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act; the district court granted summary judgment for the Hospital. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part (ADA/Rehab) and reversed in part (FMLA), remanding the FMLA claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hospital violated ADA/Rehab Act by taking adverse action based on disability | Chatila argues adverse action was discriminatory and pretextual | Hospital contends adverse action was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason: repeated, including life‑threatening, medication errors | Affirmed for defendant — plaintiff failed to show pretext or a similarly situated nondisabled comparator |
| Whether Chatila requested FMLA leave before resigning | Chatila points to her email and handwritten note as requests for FMLA leave | Hospital treats the meeting as resignation and denies an effective leave request prior to separation | Reversed and remanded — email and note create a triable issue whether she requested FMLA leave before resignation |
| Whether the Hospital interfered with FMLA rights | Chatila contends supervisor failed to inquire about FMLA and made statements that could deter leave, interfering with FMLA rights | Hospital argues no interference because no proper leave request and legitimate disciplinary process | Reversed and remanded — failure to inquire and supervisor’s remarks raise triable issues of interference |
| Whether the district court erred by considering a hostile work environment claim not pleaded | Chatila later asserted a hostile work environment claim on appeal | Hospital asserts claim was not pleaded below and should be excluded | Affirmed — district court properly refused to consider an unpleaded hostile‑work‑environment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (Sup. Ct.) (standard re: ADA/disabled employee claims and mention of FMLA context)
- Odima v. Westin Tucson Hotel Co., 991 F.2d 595 (9th Cir.) (comparator analysis for discrimination claims)
- Bachelder v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir.) (employer duty to determine whether leave request is FMLA‑covered)
- 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656 (9th Cir.) (failure to raise claim below bars appellate consideration)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (Sup. Ct.) (deference to agency interpretations cited in context of FMLA regulations)