Mullen v. Chester Cnty. Hosp. – April 2015 (Summary)

ADA

Mullen v. Chester Cnty. Hosp., Civil Action No. 14-2836 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2015)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a hospital’s motion to dismiss an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim brought by a nurse, holding that a jury could reasonably find that the hospital discriminated against her on the basis of her disability and that it retaliated against her when she filed a lawsuit. The plaintiff nurse suffered from Lupus and a congenital heart defect which occasionally caused her to become dizzy, lightheaded and faint. During one of these instances, the nurse was put into an empty bed and given an I.V. without a physician’s order. The nurse alleged that she was unable to deny this treatment, even though it violated the hospital’s protocol and the state nursing practice guidelines. The hospital investigated the incident and determined that the nurse may have asked for the I.V. or at least consented to the treatment. After the hospital’s investigation, it terminated the nurse’s employment. A month later, the nurse requested paperwork for a lawsuit and the very same day the hospital reported the nurse to the state’s nursing board. The nurse brought suit alleging that she was discriminated against due to her disability and that the hospital retaliated against her by reporting her to the nursing board in violation of the ADA. The hospital moved to dismiss the case.

The court denied the motion and held that this case was to be decided by a jury. The court explained that a reasonable jury could find that the nurse was discriminated against because the hospital’s motivation for terminating her was its belief that she was too sick to work. Furthermore, a jury could find that she was discriminated against because the nurses who administered the care were not terminated. Additionally, the court held that a jury could find that the hospital reported her to the nursing board in retaliation of her starting a lawsuit. The court explained that the timing of both could allow a jury to find that the hospital violated the ADA’s retaliation provision.