Opinion ID: 6800285
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Events Following the First Disclosure

Text: On January 6, 2016, appellant submitted a same-day leave request to Nurse Jackson, which she denied. Nurse Jackson forwarded her denial to Dr. Bellard, explaining that she had said no because appellant had sought to take leave on the 10 In his testimony, Dr. Bellard explained that the “index of suspicion” for tuberculosis “simply mean[s] that were there any other symptoms that could have pointed out that the kid had tuberculosis [?].” 10 very day she asked for it. Dr. Bellard replied: “Please pay close attention to her start date before her anniversary. I do not want her renewed, and we have to separate PRIOR to her anniversary.” Nurse Jackson responded, “ok, we [are] on the same page.” At trial, Nurse Jackson explained that she had not meant by this statement that appellant should be let go before her anniversary date in June 2016 but, rather, that she “wanted to sit down and talk” with appellant “[a]bout her job performance and her getting along with staff.” Later on January 6, despite the denial of leave – and over five hours after the scheduled beginning of appellant’s shift – Nurse Jackson emailed Dr. Bellard to inform him that appellant had still not arrived at work. In the email, Nurse Jackson told the doctor that appellant was “playing games,” and she ended by saying, “I’m ready to move forward with her. Some stress is just not worth it.” At trial, Nurse Jackson testified that, by “move forward,” she did not mean she was ready to move forward with appellant’s termination; rather, she had meant “move forward to discuss with Sabrathia issues that [Nurse Jackson] believe[d] [Sabrathia] was having.” 11 11 Nurse Jackson provided conflicting testimony regarding her role in appellant’s termination. During trial, Nurse Jackson initially affirmed her deposition testimony that she had no role in the decision to fire appellant. But during later examination at trial, Nurse Jackson acknowledged that she did (continued…) 11 Less than two days later, appellant emailed Nurse Jackson requesting 30 minutes of “comp time” for entering written orders on a new admit as requested by one of the nurse practitioners. In her email, appellant noted that she did not mind doing the task, but that there were lots of orders, which was why she had to stay until midnight. Nurse Jackson forwarded appellant’s email to Dr. Bellard, stating “Fyi…this is becoming excessive with her OT [Overtime]/Comp time request.” Dr. Bellard responded a few hours later, “Get the PRF [Personnel Request Form]; I’d rather us use agency than deal with this foolishness any longer.” 12 (…continued) recommend to Dr. Bellard that appellant be fired once she had received appellant’s same-day leave request followed by her no-show on January 6. And yet, during her examination the next day, Nurse Jackson again testified that she did not recommend to Dr. Bellard that appellant be fired on either January 6 or January 8 (when the final decision to terminate was made). 12 With respect to his statement in the email that he’d “rather us use agency than deal with this foolishness,” Dr. Bellard explained that “whenever an employee is either out sick or whatever, [the DYRS] can use agency or part-time staff to come in until we get the position filled,” and that while “sometimes it takes a little bit more training to bring agency staff up to par . . . , in [his] opinion, it was much better to get someone who was willing to do the work and capable of doing it, rather than to sort of continue with the call-outs and the no-shows and everything else.” 12 Dr. Bellard testified that the decision to fire appellant had been made definitively on January 8, 2016, when he instructed Nurse Jackson via email to prepare the PRF. Nurse Jackson similarly testified that she received an email from Dr. Bellard on January 6th or 8th “to move forward with [appellant’s] paperwork.”