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

DISCRIMINATION – AGE

Riley v. St. Mary Med. Ctr., No. 13-cv-7205 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2014)

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part a hospital’s motion to dismiss a former nurse’s claim that she was the victim of age discrimination.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old nurse, worked in the defendant hospital over ten years with generally positive work reviews.  She had a history of anxiety, colitis, insomnia, and some 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 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.

The court found that the nurse could only bring claims based on her termination itself.  Claims for the other alleged previous acts of discrimination were held to be untimely since they occurred more than 300 days before the filing of the suit.  This time-bar prevented the nurse’s claims of a hostile work environment prior her termination.  The court held that the termination itself was to be considered a “discrete act” which could not be aggregated with the other acts that had allegedly occurred in the past to constitute proof of a hostile work environment.  The court did not dismiss the nurse’s discrimination and retaliation claims, finding that the facts suggested a plausible claim for relief.  However, the court 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 also claim that any discrimination against her was based on a disability.