Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-01459/USCOURTS-ared-4_04-cv-01459-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 WESTERN DIVISION

JOE GARDNER PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 4:04CV1459GH

SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL

LITTLE ROCK, INC. DEFENDANT

ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action alleging that defendant violated his rights under the

Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act (“ACRA”)

when he was discharged. Plaintiff has filed a motion for partial summary on his

FMLA claim. 

Plaintiff is a licensed practical nurse (LPN) who worked for defendant. In

April, 2004, plaintiff was diagnosed as suffering from Hepatitis C. Hepatitis C is a

chronic, long-term illness that infects the liver. Plaintiff also suffered from

depression and his physician, Dr. Holland, had prescribed Lexapro for the depression.

Plaintiff was also diagnosed with cirrhosis, a condition where the liver has been

damaged and attempts to heal itself, which results in scars on the liver. Because of

liver malfunction, the liver does not metabolize and produce enough stable glucose in

the bloodstream to keep the blood sugar elevated to a level that gives the body

nutritional fuel on which to operate, causing the brain to be hazy and the body to be

weak. This condition is called hypoglycemia. Plaintiff received treatment for his

ailments, although there is a question as to how often he visited the doctors and the

type of treatment he received. 

Plaintiff worked the 7:00 p.m to 7:00 a.m. shifts on Friday, Saturday and

Sunday evenings. On Friday, July 16, 2004, plaintiff went to work. Later that

evening, plaintiff asked his supervisor at the time, Al Holden, for permission to leave

to take care of some business at home. Holden initially denied the request because

Case 4:04-cv-01459-GH Document 43 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 6
-2-

he could not find anyone to fill in for plaintiff at that hour. Later, plaintiff asked if

it would be acceptable for his girlfriend, Peggy Butler, also a nurse to complete his

shift. Holden approved of that. Sometime closer to midnight, plaintiff asked if he

could take a 30-minute break to take care of his business. Holden permitted plaintiff

to leave for a thirty minute lunch break., however, he did not give permission for

plaintiff to remain off for the remainder of his shift unless he found a replacement to

work for him. Butler could not work for plaintiff.

Plaintiff went home, ate some food and then proceeded to return to work.

According to plaintiff, as he was driving back to work, he became dizzy, and felt

detached, so he pulled over and passed out around Park Plaza Mall. This occurred

sometime around 2:30 and 3:00 a.m. Plaintiff called Butler, and had her bring him

home. 

Butler took a reading of plaintiff’s blood sugar which was very low; she then

gave him some glucose tablets to raise his blood sugar. Plaintiff did not return to

work. He states that he called Holden between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 .a.m. It is

somewhat unclear what plaintiff told Holden, although plaintiff and Holden agreed

that plaintiff did mention something about blood sugar. Holden believed he knew

that plaintiff had Hepatitis C. He also was aware that Hepatits C could affect glucose

levels. Furthermore, Holden stated that plaintiff looked pale the evening of July 16th.

When plaintiff called in, Holden told plaintiff that he had already spoken with

Kathleen Steinbeck, Director of Clinical Services at defendant’s Little Rock facility,

and that plaintiff should not come back to work until he had a chance to meet with

Steinbeck. Steinbeck told plaintiff he was suspended from work pending further

investigation of his absence on July 16-17. 

Steinbeck reviewed plaintiff’s personnel file prior to the decision to terminate

plaintiff. In the file is an earlier e-mail from Eula Mitchell, the Human Resources

Director at the facility, which questions whether plaintiff should be placed on FMLA

leave. Mitchell states the e-mail was only in response to noticing that plaintiff had

missed three consecutive shifts and was not in response to any particular illness.

Case 4:04-cv-01459-GH Document 43 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 6
-3-

Also in the file are a May 8, 2004, note from Dr. Holland, excusing plaintiff from work

and a call-in by plaintiff requesting leave from May 14 to May 16, 2004 because of

“sick-liver.”

According to plaintiff, Butler had called Dr. Holland after the July 16th episode.

Plaintiff contends that Dr. Holland told plaintiff to stay off work until Monday when

Dr. Holland could see him. Plaintiff saw Dr. Holland on July 19th, although he is

unsure of whether it was before or after the meeting when he was terminated. Dr.

Holland stated that he would talk to Steinbeck about what happened and explain that

plaintiff had suffered an episode of hypoglycemia and that he was not able to do

anything about it. Holland states that he spoke to Steinbeck; Steinbeck denies ever

talking to Holland.

Additionally, Butler left a note dated July 19th for Steinbeck concerning the

events of July 16-17, explaining what happened and stating that plaintiff had not

intentionally abandoned his patients. It is unclear whether Steinbeck received or

considered the note prior to the decision to terminate plaintiff. 

Plaintiff met with Steinbeck and Mitchell on July 19th. What occurred at the

meeting is in dispute. The termination form stated that plaintiff was terminated for

“patient abandonment.” Steinbeck and Mitchell state that plaintiff was terminated

for leaving his job and not returning. Plaintiff contends that during the meeting he

asked if there was any kind of leave he could take because he needed his insurance.

Defendant denies that plaintiff mentioned anything about his medical condition or

requested any type of leave. 

Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to partial summary judgment on liability

for his claims of wrongful discharge and the failure to reinstate under the FMLA.

The FMLA entitles an employee to take up to twelve weeks of leave during a

twelve-month period due to “a serious health condition that makes the employee

unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.” 29 U.S.C. §

2612(a)(1)(D). After completing FMLA leave, the employee is entitled to be restored

Case 4:04-cv-01459-GH Document 43 Filed 12/12/05 Page 3 of 6
1

Defendant ignores that plaintiff had been on medication for depression.

-4-

to his or her position, or an equivalent one. 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1). 

Plaintiff suffers from hepatitis, depression, cirrhosis and hypoglycemia. These

are long-term illnesses, which have required treatment by a physician, and according

to plaintiff, episodically incapacitate him. Defendant disputes that plaintiff suffers

from a “serious medical condition.” It states that plaintiff did not have difficulty

performing his job duties prior to July 16th; his physician did not place any

restrictions on him, and he did not take any medication for the disease.1 Defendant

further argues that there is a question of fact as to whether plaintiff’s medical

condition caused his inability to perform the functions of his job, that is, whether his

medical condition caused the fainting.

Defendant’s argument must be rejected. It is clear from the record that

plaintiff suffers from chronic illnesses. He has sought medical treatment for his

illnesses, and is under a physician’s care for them. See 29 C. F. R. § 825.114(a)(2)(iii).

It is also clear that hypoglycemia caused the fainting, and that plaintiff’s liver

malfunction caused the hypoglycemia. 

Plaintiff contends that defendant had notice of his serious medical condition.

There is support for plaintiff’s position that his supervisor that evening, Al Holden,

was aware that he had hepatitis. Holden was at least aware that hepatitis can cause

blood sugar problems. There is evidence that Steinbeck and Mitchell also were

aware of plaintiff’s condition, or at least on notice that plaintiff had some serious

medical condition. Mitchell had noted that plaintiff had been absent for three

consecutive shifts, triggering an inquiry as to whether plaintiff was eligible for

FMLA. There was additional information in plaintiff’s personnel file indicating liver

problems.

“[I]n order to invoke the protections of FMLA, an employee must notify his

employer of his ‘intention to take leave.’ 29 U.S.C. § 2612(e)(2)(B). At a minimum, an

Case 4:04-cv-01459-GH Document 43 Filed 12/12/05 Page 4 of 6
-5-

employee must give ‘at least verbal notice sufficient to make the employer aware that

the employee needs FMLA-qualifying leave.’ 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c). While the

employee does not have to mention FMLA by name, the employee has an affirmative

duty to indicate both the need and the reason for the leave. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c). “

Sanders v. May Dept. Stores Co., 315 F.3d 940, 944 (8th Cir. 2003). "Under the

FMLA, the employer's duties are triggered when the employee provides enough

information to put the employer on notice that the employee may be in need of FMLA

leave." Browning v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1043, 1049 (8th Cir. 1999).

Defendant asserts that plaintiff did not give adequate and timely notice of his

request for FMLA leave. Plaintiff states that the leave was not foreseeable. In such

a case, an employee is required to give notice as soon as it is practical, usually within

one or two working days of needing the leave. 29 C.F.R. § 825.303. Furthermore,

notice may be given either in person or by telephone and by the employee or the

employee’s spokesperson if the employee is unable to do so personally. Id.. 

Here, plaintiff called into work around 4:00 a.m., informing Holden that he had

problems with his blood sugar. There is a dispute as to whether plaintiff told Holden

that he had passed out. Additionally, there is a factual dispute as to what further

actions plaintiff took in advising defendant. According to defendant, plaintiff never

mentioned any medical problems at the termination meeting. Plaintiff refutes this,

stating that he asked for leave, that Butler had advised Steinbeck of plaintiff’s

problems, and that Holland spoke to Steinbeck about the incident. At this time, the

Court cannot find as a matter of law that plaintiff’s actions, either at the time of the

call, or subsequently, constituted adequate notice. Had there been sufficient notice,

defendant’s action in discharging plaintiff, especially without further inquiry, could

well be a violation of plaintiff’s rights under the FMLA. See Spangler v. Fed. Home

Loan Bank of Des Moines, 278 F. 3d 847, 852 (8th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff’s request for

time off due to “depression again” may be potentially valid request for FMLA leave

where employer knew that plaintiff suffering from depression).

Case 4:04-cv-01459-GH Document 43 Filed 12/12/05 Page 5 of 6
2

December 24th is a Saturday. The date the brief would be due is December 27th.

-6-

Because of there are issues of fact in dispute, summary judgment on the FMLA

claims is not appropriate.

Also pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file

a response to defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiff seeks until

December 24, 2005, to file his response.2

Defendant objects, stating that the response and likely reply defendant will file

will be submitted to the Court for review close to the trial date of January 23, 2006.

Defendant filed its motion for partial summary judgment on November 16,

2005. Plaintiff, without objection from defendant, was granted a two week extension

until December 12, 2005, to file his response. The Court is not persuaded that an

additional two weeks is necessary. The parties have already presented their facts to

the Court. The Court, therefore, will grant plaintiff until December 19, 2005 to file his

response. If defendant desires to file a reply, it shall do so by December 27, 2005.

Accordingly, the motion for partial summary judgment is denied. Plaintiff’s

motion to extend time is granted in part and denied in part.

IT IS SO ORDERED this12th day of December, 2005.

___________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:04-cv-01459-GH Document 43 Filed 12/12/05 Page 6 of 6