Plaintiff Plead a Prima Facia Case of Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Race But Did Not Exhaust Administrative Remedies
In the employment law, racial discrimination termination case of Thomas v. St. Mary Med. Ctr., PICS Case No. 14-0899 (E.D. Pa. May 23, 2014), the Honorable J. William Ditter ruled to prove a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of race, plaintiff must have alleged she belonged to a protected class, was qualified and suffered an adverse employment action in circumstances that led to an inference of discrimination. The African-American plaintiff plead prima facie case of race discrimination but did not exhaust administrative remedies on disability, retaliation and Family and Medical Leave Act claims.
In 2007, defendant St. Mary Medical Center hired plaintiff Ilisa Thomas, who is African- American, as a patient access clerk. In January 2012, defendant underwent reorganization, and workers were asked to re-apply for their jobs. Thomas applied and also requested a promotion to “lead” patient access clerk. Allegedly, Thomas had a certification as a healthcare access associate that co-workers lacked.
Thomas was informed that she was not promoted because she lacked leadership experience, had received discipline for administrative mistakes and had experienced a problem being “buddies” with colleagues. Thomas objected that her co-workers also lacked leadership experience and also received discipline for administrative mistakes. Thomas alleged that defendant interviewed less qualified Caucasian job applicants, who had received similar discipline, and did not interview Thomas. Thomas also claimed that disciplinary write-ups expired after three months and that her discipline for administrative mistakes was not recent.
In May 2012, Thomas informed defendant she was undergoing treatment for anxiety. Thomas’ request for medical leave was granted and she was away from May 4 to July 27, 2012. In July, Thomas’ doctor wrote that her “disabilities persisted.” Defendant did not permit Thomas to return to work. When Thomas’ doctor released her to return to work on Aug. 16, 2012, defendant informed her that her job was no longer available. Defendant discharged Thomas, effective Sept. 4, 2012.
Thomas filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, then sued and alleged disparate treatment on the basis of race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thomas pled a prima facie case, because she belongs to a protected class, was qualified and suffered an adverse employment action in circumstances that led to an inference of discrimination. The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss Thomas’ claim of discrimination on the basis of race.
Thomas did not mention disability and retaliation claims in her complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Only claims that are fairly within the scope of a prior administrative complaint can be considered to have been exhausted. The court dismissed her disability discrimination and retaliation claims, which were not administratively exhausted.
Thomas’ Family and Medical Leave Act claim did not allege that she was able to work, capable of performing essential functions or that her doctor provided certification that she could return to work. The FMLA permits employers to require that employees have their doctors certify they are able to return to work. The FMLA does not require employers to provide workers extensions of the FMLA leave beyond 12 weeks, or indefinite amounts of time to obtain certification from a doctor that they are able to return to work. Thomas did not allege that she was able to return to work, and the court dismissed Thomas’ FMLA claims, without prejudice.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 37 PLW 546 (June 10, 2014)
Filed Under: Employment Discrimination Case: Race Discrimination: FMLA: Employment Discharge Litigation
Please visit our Employment Law website for more information on this topic.