United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Michael P. Shea United States District Judge.
I.
Introduction
The
Plaintiff, Amanda Mancini, filed this action challenging a
decision by Accredo Health Group to terminate her employment
as an infusion nurse. In her complaint, Mancini alleges
retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act,
disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and disability discrimination in violation
of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. (ECF No.
1.) Accredo has moved for summary judgment on all counts.
(ECF No. 24.) For the reasons set forth below, the motion for
summary judgment is GRANTED as to the ADA claim and the CFEPA
claim, and DENIED as to the FMLA claim.
II.
Factual Background
The
following facts, which are taken from the parties' Local
Rule 56(a) Statements and the exhibits, are undisputed unless
otherwise indicated.
A.
Mancini's Position with Accredo
Plaintiff
Amanda Mancini began working for Defendant Accredo Health
Group on or about November 24, 2014 as an Infusion Nurse.
(ECF No. 25-l[1] ("Def.'s L.R. 56(a)(1)
Stmt.") at ¶ 9; ECF No. 27-11 ("Pl's L.R.
56(a)(2) Stmt.") at ¶ 9.) Mancini's primary
function as an Infusion Nurse was to provide in-home
intravenous ("IV") infusion medical treatment and
to assist patients with administering their medications.
(Def's L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 12; Pl's L.R.
56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 12.)
Generally,
during a home visit, Mancini would first ensure that a
patient's IV line was correctly in place and connected to
a hep-lock. (Def's L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 14;
Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 14.) A
"hep-lock," also known as a "saline
lock," is an "intravenous portal, usually placed
and left in a vein in one of the patient's arms, and used
episodically for fluid or medication infusions."
Saline Lock, Medical Dictionary,
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/saline隇
(last visited Aug. 29, 2019). If a patient already had a
hep-lock in place, Mancini would ensure that the
patient's hep-lock was adequately functioning by flushing
it with saline solution. (Def's L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at
¶ 14; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 14.) If a
patient did not already have a hep-lock in place, Mancini
would be responsible for inserting one. (Def's L.R.
56(a)(1) Stmt. at ¶ 15; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at
¶ 15.) In order to insert a hep-lock, Mancini would
attempt to locate a vein, insert a peripheral intravenous
catheter with a needle, and then remove the needle so as to
leave only the catheter in the patient's vein. (Def's
L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 16; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2)
Stmt, at ¶ 16.) If unable to properly insert the
hep-lock into a vein, Mancini would attempt to do so again by
fully removing the needle from the vein and inserting it in a
different location. (Def's L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶
17-18; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 17-18.) Under
Accredo's policy, Mancini was allowed to make three
attempts at inserting the hep-lock before having to call a
separate infusion nurse for additional assistance. (Def's
L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 19; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2)
Stmt, at ¶ 19.) Once an IV line was secured and a
patient's vitals were reading normally, Mancini would
then open and mix the patient's medication. (Def.'s
L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 20; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2)
Stmt, at ¶ 20.) After administering the patient's
medication, Mancini was responsible for disposing of all
garbage, including gauze, alcohol swabs, and wrappers, into
the patient's waste can, and disposing of all needles
into a "sharps" container. (Def.'s L.R.
56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 21; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at
¶ 21.)
B.
Mancini's Request for FMLA Leave
On
March 22, 2016, Mancini requested intermittent leave under
the FMLA through AON Hewitt, a third-party vendor that
handled FMLA leave requests for Accredo. (Def.'s L.R.
56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 30-31; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt,
at ¶ 30-31.) Mancini suffers from adrenal insufficiency,
leukocytosis, and thrombocytosis, for which she has been
hospitalized several times. (ECF No. 27-2 ("Pl's
Aff") at ¶ 82.) AON approved Mancini for
intermittent leave for a maximum often times per month, with
each absence allowed up to a full day. (Def.'s L.R.
56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 32; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at
¶ 32.) On the same day, Mancini requested and AON
approved FMLA leave for April 8, 2016. (ECF No. 24-3 at 13;
Pl's Aff. at ¶ 42.)
According
to Accredo, Mancini was pre-approved for intermittent leave,
and the only further requirement was that she report her FMLA
absences to AON Hewitt no later than 11:59 pm on the day of
the absence. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 33;
ECF No. 24-1 at 3, 18.) According to Mancini, however, on the
evening of March 22, 2016-the same day she was approved for
intermittent leave-Mancini received a phone call from her
supervisor, Lois Klansek, who confronted her about scheduling
a day of intermittent leave for April 8, 2016 for a
doctor's appointment. (Pl's Aff. at ¶¶
48-49.) Klansek told Mancini that before she scheduled any
days off, she had to first report to Klansek and obtain her
clearance, because another nurse had been given April 8 off,
and Klansek had "no nurses to cover Southeastern
Connecticut." (Id. at ¶¶ 48-49.)
Mancini also claims Klansek told her that going to AON for
FMLA approval without going to her first was not "being
a team player" because once AON approved a request for
leave, Klansek could not deny it. (Id. at ¶
49.)
C.
Mancini's April 6 Appointments
On
April 6, 2016, Mancini was scheduled to visit three patients.
(Def's L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 36; Pl's L.R.
56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 36.) When Mancini arrived at the
first patient's home, she was feeling "feverish,
flushed, and weak, and was profusely sweating."
(Def's L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 40; Pl's L.R.
56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 40.) The patient already had a
hep-lock inserted, but when Mancini flushed it with saline
solution to ensure it was adequately working, she
"received resistance from the saline solution on three
separate flushes," so she determined she had to reinsert
the hep-lock in another location. (Def's L.R. 56(a)(1)
Stmt, at ¶ 43; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶
43.) She "spent about an hour and a half flushing the
saline solution despite it normally taking fifteen
minutes." (Def's L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 44;
Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 44.)
Mancini
made at least three attempts at "sticking the
patient's vein," but was unsuccessful. (Def's
L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶¶ 46, 48; Pl's L.R.
56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶¶ 46, 48.) The patient's
family reported that Mancini made at least five attempts
(Def's L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 49), but Mancini
claims to have only made three attempts (Pl's Aff at
¶ 50). In either case, Mancini eventually telephoned
another nurse, Karen Chasse, to request assistance.
(Def's L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 53; Pl's L.R.
56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 53.)
According
to Chasse, when she arrived, "the house was in disarray
with IV supplies scattered across several surfaces," and
the family of the patient told her "that Mancini had
previously fallen into the refrigerator." (ECF No. 24-5
at ¶ 8.) Accredo also claims that the patient's
family told Chasse that Mancini "looked scary" with
"Parkinson like movements" and that Mancini
"left a bloody gauze on the couch" as well as used
needles on the floor and coffee table. (Def's L.R.
56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 59.) Mancini denies these
allegations and claims she kept the supplies organized,
although she admits that there "might have been one
piece of gauze on the floor." (Pl's Aff at ¶
53.) After Chasse arrived, Mancini went into the bathroom,
while Chasse started the patient's IV without difficulty.
(Def's L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 60-61; Pl's L.R.
56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 60-61.)
At this
point, Chasse phoned Mancini's supervisor, Klansek, to
express concern for Mancini's well-being and current
state. (Def's L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 62; Pl's
L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 62.) Klansek, in turn, phoned
Mancini to express concern and ask how she was feeling.
(Def's L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 63; Pl's L.R.
56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 63.) What more was said during that
conversation is hotly disputed by the parties. Mancini claims
that she made a medical leave request and that Klansek denied
it because she had no one else to cover the patients.
(Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 118; Pl's Aff. at
¶ 46.) According to Mancini, one of her April 6 patients
was "the patient of a certain doctor who provided a lot
of business to [Accredo], and it was known that it was very
important to keep patients for that particular doctor
happy." (Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 120.)
Accredo claims no FMLA request was made. (ECF No. 30 at 3-4.)
Mancini
then drove to her next patient-her third scheduled
appointment. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 68;
ECF No. 24-3 at 47.) Her second scheduled appointment had
cancelled because Mancini was by now running too late for the
patient's schedule. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at
¶ 69; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 69.)
Mancini's appointment with this patient-her second of the
day-did not go well. The patient asked Mancini to leave
"within minutes of [her] entering" the
patient's home because she thought Mancini was
"under the influence." (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)(1)
Stmt, at ¶ 76; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶
76.) The patient later reported that Mancini
'"[l]ooked like she was on crack,' was
disheveled with slurred speech and fell into a wall."
(Def.'s L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 75; Pl's L.R.
56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 75.) Mancini claims she was not
disheveled, did not slur her speech, and did not fall into a
wall. (Pl's Aff at ¶ 54.) But she does not dispute
the fact that the patient reported these things.
Mancini
offered to "urinate in a cup" to prove she was not
intoxicated, apparently at the suggestion of the patient, who
had formerly worked at a half-way house. (Def.'s L.R.
56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 77; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at
¶ 77; ECF No. 24-3 at 52.) She spent some time in the
bathroom to this end, but had difficulty urinating and failed
to provide a sample. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at
¶ 79; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 79.) After
Mancini came out of the bathroom, the patient and her husband
offered to drive Mancini thirty-five to forty minutes to
Mancini's home. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶
81; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 81.) They were
concerned that Mancini was not in a condition to drive
herself. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 82;
Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 82.) Despite the
offer, Mancini decided to drive herself home. (Def.'s
L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 82; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2)
Stmt, at ¶ 82.)
D.
Mancini's Arrest and Hospitalization
The
patient and her husband were so concerned about Mancini's
ability to drive that they decided to call 911, and, shortly
thereafter, Mancini was pulled over. (Def.'s L.R.
56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 84-85; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt,
at ¶ 84; Pl's Aff. at ¶ 86.) According to the
police report, Mancini "appeared 'visibly upset,
crying and speaking nonsensically," "displayed
'incoherent speech, '" and failed a field
sobriety test. (Def.'s L.R. 56(a)(1) Stmt, at ¶ 86,
91; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 86, 91; ECF No.
25-2 at 4-5.) Mancini argues that she "did well on the
field sobriety test" and "did not almost fall
over," but does not contest that the police officers
concluded that she failed, nor does she contest Accredo's
characterization of the police report. (Pl's Aff. at
¶ 87; Pl's L.R. 56(a)(2) Stmt, at ¶ 91.)
Mancini was placed under arrest for driving under ...