Plaintiff William Oscar Ward sued defendants Wesley Medical Center, LLC and HCA Healthcare, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas raising claims of disability-based harassment and retaliation, and FMLA retaliation and enforcement. Before the court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Wesley hired Ward as a Maintenance Mechanic in March 2020. Ward invented a device to clean sprinkler heads at work but believed that his supervisors Brian Leabo and Darrell Boger failed to recognize his invention or give him proper credit. In March 2021, Ward filed a series of complaints with various Wesley personnel and Ethics & Compliance Case Managers about another employee trying to take credit for his invention. Wesley investigated but could not substantiate improper conduct.
Ward also alleged that someone tampered with his belongings in late March/early April 2021 when his manager cut the lock off his personal cabinet. Ward first sought medical care for anxiety on April 15, 2021, and contacted Wesley’s third-party leave administrator Time Away From Work (TAFW) on April 19, 2021, requesting leave from April 12 through April 20. TAFW approved the request and Ward received extensions through May 2 and then May 24.
Lisa Clark, Wesley’s Vice President of Human Resources, emailed Ward multiple times requesting meetings when his approved leave expired. Clark warned that failure to attend meetings would result in termination. Ward did not attend the meetings or communicate with Clark, though he continued communicating with TAFW about leave extensions. Clark ultimately terminated Ward’s employment effective July 15, 2021, for job abandonment after Ward exhausted his twelve weeks of FMLA leave and failed to return to work or contact her.
Evidentiary Disputes
The court noted significant procedural problems with Ward’s briefing. Ward failed to properly respond to defendants’ statement of facts as required by federal and local rules, despite receiving proper notice of these requirements. The court deemed defendants’ facts admitted and disregarded Ward’s factual contentions except for stipulated facts in the pretrial order. Ward attempted to correct these omissions in his reply brief by attaching exhibits and providing a numbered list of facts, but the court found this effort came too late and would allow improper sandbagging of the opposing party.
Legal Analysis
Scope of Claims
The court limited Ward’s claims to the four claims identified in the pretrial order, excluding additional claims for failure to accommodate and FMLA interference that Ward raised in his briefing but failed to include in the pretrial order. The court emphasized that the pretrial order controls proceedings and serves a significant purpose for the court and opposing counsel in defining the bounds of claims at issue.
Disability Discrimination Based on Harassment
Ward claimed he was subjected to harassment or a hostile work environment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court found Ward failed to establish the causation element required for a hostile work environment claim. Ward argued his disability was exacerbated by harassment, but the court explained this connection was backwards—the discrimination must be because of the disability, not the disability because of discrimination.
Even addressing the merits, the court found Ward pointed to no evidence showing the work environment was both subjectively and objectively hostile. Ward cited only isolated incidents including complaints about credit for his invention, management’s failure to address his complaints, and tampering with his belongings. The court concluded these allegations fell short of conduct sufficiently pervasive or severe to alter employment conditions and create an objectively abusive working environment.
Retaliation Claims (Disability-Based and FMLA-Based)
The court addressed Ward’s disability and FMLA retaliation claims together, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework since Ward’s evidence was circumstantial. Ward failed to establish a prima facie case for several reasons.
Prima Facie Case Analysis
For the disability retaliation claim, Ward failed to engage in protected activity as he never complained about disability discrimination or requested an ADA accommodation. His request for medical leave through the third-party administrator did not constitute protected activity under the ADA, particularly since the administrator advised him to contact Human Resources if he wanted to discuss accommodations, which he never did.
Both retaliation claims suffered from the same causation problem as the harassment claim. Ward could not show a causal connection between his disability/leave requests and his treatment or termination. Clark waited twelve weeks after Ward’s leave was first approved before terminating his employment and gave him a final opportunity to contact her, which he ignored.
Legitimate Non-Discriminatory Reason
Wesley met its burden of providing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Ward’s termination by explaining that Clark terminated his employment because he did not return to work after his protected leave was exhausted, constituting job abandonment.
Pretext Analysis
Ward failed to demonstrate that Wesley’s explanation was pretext for discriminatory or retaliatory conduct. The court noted that Ward had only timing as evidence—his termination shortly after protected leave ended—but temporal proximity alone is insufficient to defeat summary judgment without additional circumstantial evidence of bad motive, which Ward failed to present.
The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied Ward’s cross-motion for summary judgment, finding no reasonable jury could find for Ward on his disability harassment claim or his disability and FMLA retaliation claims due to lack of causation and failure to establish protected activity.
Schrag on Law 