Riley v. St. Mary Med. Ctr. (Summary)

DISCRIMINATION – AGE AND DISABILITY

Riley v. St. Mary Med. Ctr., No. 13-CV-7205 (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2014)

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part a nurse’s motion to reconsider her claim that she was the victim of age discrimination.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old nurse, worked in the defendant hospital for 10 years with generally positive work reviews.  She had a history of anxiety, colitis, insomnia, and cognitive disabilities.  In 2009, she complained to her supervisor that she was experiencing harassment at the hands of another nurse.  In 2011, the nurse received a poor annual evaluation that she claimed contained a significant amount of inaccurate information.  The nurse expressed her concern that she was being selectively discriminated against because of her age.  Shortly thereafter, the hospital began scheduling her for fewer shifts as the charge nurse, instead giving the position to a younger employee.  One week after the hospital hired a new, younger nurse in early 2013, the hospital terminated her for allegedly poor performance.  The nurse then filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging age discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation.

In a prior opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the nurse had not provided adequate factual support to substantiate her claims that she suffered from a disability. Because of this, she could not claim that any discrimination against her was based on a disability. See Riley v. St. Mary Med. Ctr., No. 13-cv-7205 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2014).

In this subsequent opinion, the court granted in part the nurse’s motion to reconsider, analyzing the nurse’s claims under the liberalized standard of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”). The court determined that the nurse’s mere allegations that she had difficulty in sleeping, concentrating, communicating and thinking were sufficient to allege that she had a disability under the ADAAA.

Noting that the Pennsylvania legislature had not adopted similar amendments to its Human Relations Act, the court held that the nurse continued to allege inadequate facts about her alleged disability to sustain a claim under that Act.  Specifically, the court noted that a claim for discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act would require the nurse to allege that her impairments prevent or several restrict her from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s lives.  Conclusory allegations that the nurse was, at times, limited in her ability to enjoy several major life activities was not sufficient.