Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Shockley v. Stericycle, Inc.

United States District Court, Seventh Circuit

September 19, 2013

CHRISTOPHER SHOCKLEY, Plaintiff,
v.
STERICYCLE, INC.; ROBERT RIZZO; VICKI KRATOHWIL; and ELIZABETH BLUMER; individually and as agents for the Defendant STERICYCLE, INC., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN W. DARRAH, District Judge.

Plaintiff Christopher Shockley filed suit on March 5, 2013, against Defendant Stericycle, Inc. and Individual Defendants, Robert Rizzo, Vicki Kratohwil, and Elizabeth Blumer, as agents for Stericycle, Inc., asserting two violations under the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2615. Stericycle filed an answer to the Complaint on May 15, 2013. That same day, the Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated below, the Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are drawn from the Complaint and are accepted as true for purposes of the Motion to Dismiss. See Reger Dev., LLC v. Nat'l City Bank, 592 F.3d 759, 763 (7th Cir. 2010). Stericycle, Inc. is a medical waste disposal firm that employed Plaintiff as a collector of delinquent balances beginning in March 2009. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-11.) Defendant Vicki Kratohwil is the Leave Absence Administrator for Stericycle; Defendant Elizabeth Blumer is the Director of Human Resources for Stericycle, and Defendant Robert Rizzo is the Director of Financial Shared Services. ( Id. ¶¶ 3-5.) Plaintiff worked as a collector of delinquent balances in the Financial Shared Services Department. ( Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff's immediate supervisor at Stericycle was Marie Blue. ( Id. ¶ 12.)

On January 18, 2011, Plaintiff informed Blue he needed to take medical leave due to his father's illness. ( Id. ¶ 13.) Blue directed Plaintiff to contact Stericycle's insurance companies and its benefit coordinator. ( Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff was absent from January 19, 2011, through February 7, 2011. ( Id. ¶¶ 15, 17.) Plaintiff was informed by Blue that he would be paid for January 19, 20, and 21 of 2011, due to two personal days and one floating holiday Plaintiff had accrued. ( Id. ¶ 16.)

Liberty Mutual, which handled the FMLA claims for Stericyle, informed Plaintiff he was eligible for FMLA leave and noted that "you have indicated that your FMLA and/or State leave will begin on 1/21/2011 and end on 4/14/2011." ( Id. ¶ 18.) Based on advice from a Liberty Mutual representative, Shockley designated his leave as "continuous." ( Id. ) On January 18, 2011, Plaintiff received a Certification of Health Care Provider form to be completed from Liberty Mutual. ( Id. ¶ 19.) On the form, Stericycle had marked "continuous leave dates requested are: leave begin date: 1/21/11 and Leave End Date: 4/14/11." ( Id. ) Plaintiff completed his portion of the form and wrote "leave may be intermittent contingent upon prognosis and treatment." ( Id. ¶ 20.) A physician treating Plaintiff's father completed a portion of the form, indicating that the leave required was "intermittent" and noting that leave was required so Plaintiff could transport his father to and from the doctor and to supervise home therapy. ( Id. ) The physician signed the form on February 1, 2011, and Plaintiff faxed the completed form to Liberty Mutual on February 8, 2011. ( Id. ¶¶ 20-21.)

On February 15, 2011, a Liberty Mutual representative contacted Plaintiff and informed him that the form he supplied included contradictory information, because Stericycle had approved continuous leave, while the physician indicated that only intermittent leave was appropriate. ( Id. ¶ 22.) Plaintiff received a letter from Liberty Mutual, dated February 17, 2011, which notified him that he received intermittent leave approval from January 21, 2011 through April 15, 2011, with 5.00 days of leave permitted per month. ( Id. ¶ 23.) Another Liberty Mutual representative informed Plaintiff on February 18, 2011, that he could have the physician resubmit a corrected form. ( Id. ¶ 22.)

Plaintiff was never informed that the dates previously approved under continuous leave were no longer approved, and Plaintiff was not given the opportunity to correct the medical certification form. ( Id. ¶¶ 24, 25.) Liberty Mutual advised Plaintiff he could submit an amended certification, but this advice was contradicted by Blue and Individual Defendant Kratohwil, the Stericycle benefits administrator. ( Id. ¶¶ 25-26.) Plaintiff applied for and was granted FMLA leave for his own health problems from February 21 to 24, 2011. ( Id. ¶ 27.) Plaintiff was thwarted in his attempts to meet with Stericycle's Human Resources representatives to determine what was necessary to correct the certification for his first requested FMLA leave. ( Id. ¶ 28.)

In a letter dated March 8, 2011, Kratohwil informed Plaintiff that his leave included four unexcused absences because they were "outside of the first five approved days of your continuous absence period." ( Id. ¶ 29.) Plaintiff received an "Employee Counseling Report" on March 10, 2011, signed by Blue, regarding his violation of the company attendance policy for unexcused absences on January 19, 20, 28, and 31 of 2011. ( Id. ¶ 35.) The following day, Plaintiff was advised by Liberty Mutual to re-submit the physician certification to cover days that had not been included in the original form. ( Id. ¶ 31.) However, on March 15, 2011, Plaintiff met with Kratohwil and was informed that no amended certification would be accepted. ( Id. ¶ 30.) Despite this, the certifying physician, at Plaintiff's instruction, submitted a revised certification form and faxed it to Liberty Mutual on March 17, 2011. ( Id. ¶ 31.) The amended certification indicated Plaintiff needed continuous leave from January 19, 2011 through February 6, 2011. ( Id. )

Plaintiff sent a four-page letter to Kratohwil on March 21, 2011, explaining his attempts to communicate with Stericycle about his leave and how he received contradictory information about the process of applying for leave. ( Id. ¶ 32.) Kratohwil responded that same day, stating that Stericycle would go forward with the actions previously communicated to Plaintiff, and failed to acknowledge the concerns Plaintiff raised in his letter. ( Id. ) In a letter dated March 22, 2011, Liberty Mutual informed Plaintiff his request to update his leave was denied because Liberty Mutual was "unable to accept the medical form for the dates of 1/19/11 to 2/6/11 because it is beyond the 30 day submission grace period." ( Id. ¶ 33.) Plaintiff was never made aware of the thirty-day submission deadline. ( Id. ¶ 34.)

Plaintiff and Blue, his immediate supervisor, met on March 25, 2011, to discuss a salary raise. ( Id. ¶ 36.) Blue informed Plaintiff he would not receive a raise because of his attendance issue. ( Id. ) Thereafter, Plaintiff did not reply and simply walked out of the meeting room. ( Id. ) Later that same day, Plaintiff was approached by Individual Defendant Elizabeth Blumer, Stericycle's Director of Human Resources, who informed Plaintiff he was being terminated for his "insubordination because you got up and walked out after a discussion with Ms. Blue on the salary increase." ( Id. ¶ 37.)

Plaintiff asserts Kratohwil and Stericycle interfered with his FMLA rights by disciplining Plaintiff for use of four qualified FMLA days, because Defendants failed to permit Plaintiff to correct his leave certification. ( Id. ¶ 42.) Plaintiff further alleges the Individual Defendants had the ability to control whether Stericycle would interfere with his FMLA rights and whether absences under the FMLA would count against Plaintiff in his performance evaluations. ( Id. ¶¶ 43-44.) The Individual Defendants acted willfully to deny Plaintiff's rights under the FMLA. ( Id. ¶ 46.)

In Count I of the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts Defendants interfered with his rights to leave under the FMLA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2601, 2615(a)(1). In Count II of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising his rights under the FMLA, including a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2). The Individual Defendants move to dismiss these claims ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.