Estate of Nancy Murray v. UHS of Fairmount, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130199 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 10, 2011)

District Court dismisses nurse's FMLA and disability discrimination claims when she was terminated eleven days after her return to work following a medical leave.

In Estate of Nancy Murray, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her former employer following her termination as a staff nurse. Prior to her termination, the plaintiff took two leaves of absence for depression, including a leave of absence eleven days prior to her termination. However, upon her return to work, the plaintiff made two narcotics mistakes in violation of her employer's policies. First, after a patient refused to take the mediation that was prescribed, the plaintiff wasted the mediation without securing a witness signature. Second, the plaintiff signed for 25 doses of medication when the pharmacy provided her with 23 doses of medication. The plaintiff also failed to inform the employer of the two mistakes. Based upon those narcotics mistakes, her employment was terminated. Following her termination, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging she was discriminated and retaliated against on the basis of her disability (depression) and terminated in retaliation for taking FMLA leave. The employer first argued that the plaintiff was not disabled under the ADA because, among other things, her depression was a transitory and/or temporary impairment. The court, however, rejected this argument, noting that the EEOC has adopted regulations which provide that "effects of an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting" and the plaintiff's depression, therefore, may constitute a disability despite the fact that she took leave for only a short period of time. The court, however, noted that the plaintiff could not sustain her burden of demonstrating that her termination was a pretext for discrimination. In particular, the court found that while there was a dispute as to whether the plaintiff was permitted to "explain her [narcotics] errors," it did not make the "termination for the narcotics errors themselves and for failure to report the errors implausible or so plainly wrong that they could not have been the real reasons for termination."

Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012