Parkhurst v. American Healthways Services, LLC
700 F. App'x 445
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Parkhurst worked 11 years as a Telephonic Nurse for American Healthways Services (AHS); she was 59 and had a cardiac condition for which she took 10 days of FMLA leave after surgery in Oct. 2013.
- AHS uses metrics (attempted calls/hr and successful calls/hr) to evaluate Telephonic Nurses; AHS raised the metrics in Jan. 2014.
- Parkhurst repeatedly failed to meet productivity metrics despite three progressive Performance Improvement Plans (Nov. 2013, Jan. 2014, Final PIP Feb. 2014) and was terminated Feb. 2014 for poor performance.
- Parkhurst alleges age discrimination (ADEA), disability discrimination (ADA), and FMLA retaliation; she points to supervisor Lori Koyuncu’s age/health-related comments and temporal proximity to FMLA leave as evidence of pretext.
- The district court granted summary judgment for AHS; the Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, concluding Parkhurst failed to raise a genuine issue that AHS’s stated reason (poor performance) was pretextual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination was pretext for age discrimination (ADEA) | Parkhurst argues Koyuncu made age-related remarks ("at your age...","have you considered retiring") showing discriminatory animus | AHS contends termination was for documented poor productivity; remarks were isolated/ambiguous and made in context of performance discussions | Court held remarks were too ambiguous/isolated to show pretext; affirmed summary judgment for AHS |
| Whether termination was pretext for disability discrimination (ADA) | Parkhurst points to health-related comments and that her cardiac surgery/FMLA leave explained poor performance, not cause for firing | AHS points to objective metrics, multiple PIPs, and retention of similarly aged/disabled or FMLA-using coworkers | Court held comments could be read as sympathy or acknowledgement of causes for poor performance and did not negate stated, documented reason for firing |
| Whether termination was FMLA retaliation | Parkhurst relies on supervisor’s responses to FMLA paperwork and temporal proximity (surgery Oct. 2013; firing Feb. 2014) | AHS argues timing is not suspicious given four-month gap and plaintiff’s sustained underperformance; supervisor comments were vague | Court held timing plus ambiguous remarks insufficient to show retaliatory motive; no pretext shown |
| Whether AHS applied disparate productivity standards | Parkhurst contends others were held to lower standards and claims a comparative document; she raised this only on appeal | AHS (and record) show uniform standards; claim was forfeited for failure to raise below and lacks supporting evidence | Court treated claim as forfeited and in any event Parkhurst failed both metrics, so argument would not change result |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in circumstantial discrimination cases)
- Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2009) (three ways to show pretext under McDonnell Douglas)
- Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444 (6th Cir. 2004) (pretext analysis and evidentiary approaches)
- Phelps v. Yale Sec., Inc., 986 F.2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1993) (isolated/ambiguous comments insufficient to prove discrimination)
- Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co., LLC, 681 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 2012) (suspicious timing requires other independent evidence to infer pretext)