Eagle v. Hurley Medical Center

292 F.R.D. 466 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Eagle (P) worked as a pharmacy technician at D. At the end of P's employment, D's Director of Pharmacy was Amy Benko. Marsha Strozier-Wesley worked as Pharmacy Supervisor and reported to Benko. Strozier-Wesley was responsible for disciplining, scheduling, and evaluating the pharmacy technicians and was P's supervisor. P's performance evaluations were conducted by Strozier-Wesley. P received an overall grade of 4.12 on her 2010/2011 performance evaluation, which Strozier-Wesley testified was considered a very good grade. P was diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus) in 2008/2009. P sought a medical leave due to her lupus, as she was suffering from fatigue, joint stiffness and paresthesia (numbness and tingling). P requested from the Employee Health Office (EHO) that she not be required to work more than eight hours in a shift. P's request was also supported by medical documentation from her physician that was given to Jennifer Carvounis, D's EHO nurse. The EHO gave P ADA paperwork, which she completed on October 20, 2010. EHO then notified the pharmacy department of P's work restrictions, without providing a diagnosis due to P's request that her exact condition not be revealed to her department. P requested intermittent FMLA leave in 2011 due to lupus flare-ups. D's EHO was aware that P had approved FMLA for her condition. P's supervisor, Strozier-Wesley, was also aware that P was granted FMLA. P was eventually fired and sued D for wrongful termination. P filed a Witness List that included both Lavonda Rimmer and Patricia Ramirez. D allowed the depositions of any employees requested by P's counsel. P's counsel deposed six of D's employees. P's counsel served D with disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a), which contained an affidavit from pharmacist Lavonda Rimmer. Rimmer testified that the dispensing job is more physically demanding than the IVAD job. P's counsel served D with disclosures including an affidavit of Patricia Ramirez. This affidavit contains information regarding P's termination. According to D, Rimmer is a direct supervisor of P and a managerial employee. P claims Rimmer was a rank-and-file employee. There is also a dispute as to Ramirez's position within D. P argues that Ramirez is another example of a 'rank and file' employee and that she is simply a fact witness to the events leading to P's termination. D claims she is a manager.