`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TRACY HACK,
`
`Plaintiff,
`Case No: 20-cv-
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`Hon.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mag.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, INC.,
`VHS OF MICHIGAN, INC., and
`VHS HARPER-HUTZEL HOSPITAL, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`__________________________________________________________________
`DEBORAH GORDON LAW
`
`
`Deborah L. Gordon (P27058)
`
`
`
`Elizabeth A. Marzotto Taylor (P82061)
`Sarah Gordon Thomas (P83935)
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220
`Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
`
`(248) 258-2500 /fax (248) 258-7881
`
`dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com
`emarzottotaylor@deborahgordonlaw.com
`sthomas@deborahgordonlaw.com
`__________________________________________________________________
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Tracy Hack, by her attorneys Deborah Gordon Law, complains
`
`against Defendants as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-12868-MAG-CI ECF No. 1 filed 10/27/20 PageID.2 Page 2 of 14
`
`Jurisdiction and Parties
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for retaliation in violation of the Family and Medical
`
`Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and disability discrimination in
`
`violation
`
`the of Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act
`
`(“PWDCRA”), MCL 37.1202(1).
`
`2. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of Defendants’ actions in failing to provide
`
`Plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation for her disability after she returned from
`
`medical leave and failing to return her to her position as a Patient Safety Officer in
`
`violation of the FMLA.
`
`3. Plaintiff Tracy Hack is a resident of Michigan and resides in the Eastern
`
`District.
`
`4. Defendant TENET HEALTHCARE CORPORATION,
`
`INC.,
`
`(“Tenet”) is a foreign for-profit corporation, incorporated in Nevada and
`
`headquartered in Dallas, Texas. It is a multi-national, investor-owned healthcare
`
`services company. Tenet does business, and has numerous subsidiaries it operates
`
`and controls, in the State of Michigan.
`
`5. VHS OF MICHIGAN, INC., a wholly-owned subsidiary of VHS, Inc.,
`
`is a foreign for-profit corporation, incorporated in Delaware and doing business in
`
`Detroit, Michigan as The Detroit Medical Center (“DMC”), a Michigan corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in Wayne County Michigan. In 2013, Tenet
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-12868-MAG-CI ECF No. 1 filed 10/27/20 PageID.3 Page 3 of 14
`
`purchased VHS of Michigan.
`
`6. VHS HARPER-HUTZEL HOSPITAL, INC., a foreign for-profit
`
`corporation, incorporated in Delaware, is part of the DMC, doing business in
`
`Michigan as Harper-Hutzel Hospital (comprising Harper University Hospital,
`
`Hutzel Women’s Hospital, the CardioVascular Institute and DMC Surgery
`
`Hospital). In 2013, VHS HARPER-HUTZEL HOSPITAL, INC. became a
`
`subsidiary owned by Tenet.
`
`7. The events underlying this Complaint occurred in the Eastern District
`
`of Michigan.
`
`8. This Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC
`
`'1331 and 28 USC ' 1343.
`
` Background Facts
`
`a.
`
`Employment History
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff is diagnosed with Lupus, Anemia, Fibromyalgia, and Low
`
`Count Monoclonal B-Cell Lymphocytosis. She has always managed these
`
`conditions and they have never prevented her from performing her work and
`
`maintaining a successful career.
`
`10. Plaintiff began working for the DMC as the Regional Director of Risk
`
`Management and Patient Safety on January 9, 2017. Her salary was $115,000, plus
`
`10% bonus eligibility. Plaintiff was promoted to National Director of Quality and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-12868-MAG-CI ECF No. 1 filed 10/27/20 PageID.4 Page 4 of 14
`
`Patient Safety on January 12, 2018. Her salary was increased to $170,000, plus 20%
`
`bonus eligibility. Plaintiff was promoted to Chief Quality Officer in May of 2019
`
`with salary and bonus options remaining the same.
`
`11. She was a member of the DMC executive team and reported directly to
`
`Anthony Tedeschi, then CEO of the DMC.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
` Her performance was at all times satisfactory or better.
`
`In September of 2019, Defendants unexpectedly terminated four
`
`employees that worked closely with Plaintiff in her Chief of Quality role. Plaintiff
`
`had reason to believe her job was also in jeopardy.
`
`14. Rather than await termination, Plaintiff reached out to Dr. Tedeschi to
`
`discuss moving into a different role—Patient Safety Officer (“PSO”)— within the
`
`DMC network. Dr. Tedeschi told Plaintiff that it would be in her best interest to take
`
`the PSO position. Her role as Chief of Quality was later cut; Plaintiff was not given
`
`a reason why.
`
`15. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff was slotted into the PSO role. In doing so,
`
`she took a pay cut of roughly $16,000.
`
`b.
`
`Plaintiff’s Medical Leave
`
`16. Plaintiff was to begin the PSO role on December 22, 2019 but had been
`
`covering the PSO role since it had been vacated in November of 2019.
`
`17. Plaintiff was using Manager Time Off (MTO) and was working from
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-12868-MAG-CI ECF No. 1 filed 10/27/20 PageID.5 Page 5 of 14
`
`home during the holiday season from December 20, 2019, to January 6, 2020.
`
`18. Plaintiff’s job could at all times be performed remotely.
`
`19. On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff began experiencing serious medical
`
`symptoms that were exacerbating her health conditions and visited her primary care
`
`physician. Laboratory results were suggestive of declining hemoglobin.
`
`20. Plaintiff made an appointment with her hematologist for December 30,
`
`2019 related to her laboratory results and worsening symptoms, but because of such
`
`a quick deterioration in her medical condition, Plaintiff presented to the emergency
`
`room at Huron Valley-Sinai Hospital on December 27, 2019. Plaintiff was found to
`
`have a significantly low hemoglobin and was transfused 2 units of packed red blood
`
`cells while in the emergency room, underwent an emergency procedure, and was
`
`admitted for observation. She notified Joe Eastman, Chief Human Resources
`
`Officer, Karima Bentounsi, Chief Operating Officer, and Anthony Tedeschi, DMC
`
`CEO.
`
`21. Plaintiff began experiencing painful complications immediately
`
`following the procedure, including severe back and leg pain. She visited her
`
`hematologist on January 6, 2020, who told Plaintiff that despite the 2 units of blood
`
`that she received, she would also require an iron infusion.
`
`22. Given her current pain level, health conditions, and impending iron
`
`infusions, Plaintiff’s hematologist determined she would not be able to return to the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-12868-MAG-CI ECF No. 1 filed 10/27/20 PageID.6 Page 6 of 14
`
`Hospital on January 7, 2020.
`
`23. Accordingly, on January 7, 2020, Plaintiff requested and submitted
`
`FMLA paperwork to Jeffrey Edralin, Tenet Leave of Absence Administrator, who
`
`approved her leave. She also notified her supervisors and the HR Officer of her
`
`leave.
`
`24. On January 10, 2020, Plaintiff had an iron infusion. Unfortunately,
`
`Plaintiff had an allergic reaction to the intravenous (IV) iron that was administered
`
`and was transferred via ambulance to St. John Emergency Room and was admitted
`
`to observation unit and was discharged on January 12, 2020. Thereafter, her back
`
`and leg pain became unbearable.
`
`25. She again notified her supervisors and the HR officer of her health
`
`status.
`
`26. On January 17, 2020, she returned to the cancer center infusion clinic
`
`for IV hydration to flush her kidneys related to a suspected delayed blood transfusion
`
`reaction.
`
`27. On January 27, 2020, Plaintiff underwent a magnetic resonance
`
`imaging (MRI) with contrast and she suffered an adverse reaction and was again sent
`
`to St. John Hospital Emergency Room where she was admitted for observation and
`
`pain control. She was discharged from the hospital on January 28, 2020.
`
`28. Plaintiff was then referred to Rheumatology who diagnosed her with
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-12868-MAG-CI ECF No. 1 filed 10/27/20 PageID.7 Page 7 of 14
`
`Fibromyalgia and confirmed an exacerbation of her Lupus and started her on
`
`immunosuppressive medications and steroids.
`
`29. Plaintiff was also referred to a Pain Specialist/Physical Medicine and
`
`Rehabilitation Physician who prescribed physical therapy 3 days a week. Plaintiff
`
`was only able to attend 2 sessions before the quarantine and was told by
`
`Rheumatology that it was no longer safe for her to attend.
`
`c. Discussions Regarding Plaintiff’s Return to Work
`
`30. During this time, the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Michigan Governor
`
`Gretchen Whitmer declared a state of emergency on March 10, 2020.
`
`31. Plaintiff’s health conditions made her particularly susceptible to
`
`complications from COVID-19, as she was severely immunocompromised.
`
`Defendants were aware of this, as Plaintiff sent physician notes to HR, Maher, and
`
`the Tenet Leave of Absence Administrator each time she had an appointment.
`
`Because Plaintiff worked at a hospital, her risk of exposure to the virus was high.
`
`32. Throughout her leave, Plaintiff regularly communicated with Maher
`
`and Eastman about her status. They told her not to be concerned about the end of her
`
`FMLA leave, which was set to expire on March 31, 2020, and reassured Plaintiff her
`
`job was not in jeopardy. Tenet’s Leave of Absence Administrator also approved of
`
`Plaintiff’s continued leave while she needed it.
`
`33. Moreover, the Governor had issued an Executive Order, effective from
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-12868-MAG-CI ECF No. 1 filed 10/27/20 PageID.8 Page 8 of 14
`
`March 24, 2020- April 13, 2020, which required employees to work from home
`
`unless those employees were designated as essential workers. See Executive Order
`
`2020-21. Plaintiff was not a designated essential worker.
`
`34.
`
`In May of 2020, while Plaintiff was out on leave, she suggested to
`
`Maher that she begin to ease back in to a regular working schedule, starting with
`
`working three days per week, from home, and taking the other two days off to rest.
`
`Maher was supportive of this arrangement. (At this time, the Governor’s Order still
`
`required all but essential works to remain at home. See Executive Order 2020-59.)
`
`35. On May 29, 2020, Plaintiff was cleared by her doctor to begin working
`
`again for three days out of the week, from home. Plaintiff sent the notice to Maher,
`
`Eastman, and the Tenet Leave of Absence Operations Administrator who signs off
`
`on all returning employees. (At this time, the Governor’s Order still required all but
`
`essential works to remain at home. See Executive Order 2020-96.)
`
`36. Although Defendants were originally encouraging of this arrangement,
`
`they declined to approve Plaintiff to return to work for three days remotely. Weeks
`
`went by and Plaintiff was not approved to return.
`
`37. Plaintiff was cleared by her physician to begin working full-time from
`
`home on July 6, 2020. She informed Defendants that same day.
`
`d.
`
`Failure to Accommodate
`
`38. On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff got a call from Eastman. He told her that the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-12868-MAG-CI ECF No. 1 filed 10/27/20 PageID.9 Page 9 of 14
`
`DMC was not going to allow Plaintiff’s accommodation of working remotely.
`
`39.
`
` She would have to be physically present in the office full time or would
`
`not be able to remain in her role. (At this time, the Governor’s Order stated that every
`
`employee that could work remotely must do so. See Executive Order 2020-110.)
`
`40. This accommodation would not have been an undue burden for
`
`Defendants because Plaintiff could perform her job remotely.
`
`41. Plaintiff suggested that she physically return to the Hospital, but remain
`
`in her own office, which would limit her travel throughout the Hospital and thereby
`
`limit her exposure to the virus. Eastman declined this option and told Plaintiff that
`
`the DMC would not be allowing Plaintiff any accommodations.
`
`42. On July 8, 2020, Plaintiff sent a letter to Maher, Eastman, and Karima
`
`Bentounsi, then Chief Operating Officer of Harper Hospital, asking them to
`
`reconsider the decision and made reference to FMLA retaliation and the Americans
`
`with Disabilities Act.
`
`43. Defendants did not reconsider their failure to accommodate. Instead,
`
`on July 21, 2020, Plaintiff was offered a position as an Abstractor, a role in which
`
`she would review medical charts to ensure compliance with Medicare and Medicaid.
`
`Her supervisors approved of her working remotely in this role, which paid
`
`significantly less money.
`
`44. Left with no other choice, Plaintiff accepted the role as an Abstractor,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-12868-MAG-CI ECF No. 1 filed 10/27/20 PageID.10 Page 10 of 14
`
`and began working remotely on August 3, 2020.
`
`45. Plaintiff is now making $94,692 with fewer benefits and no bonus
`
`eligibility. This is roughly $60,000 less than her role as a PSO, not including
`
`bonuses. In addition, Plaintiff is grossly over-qualified for this role.
`
`COUNT I
`Retaliation in Violation of the Family Medical Leave Act
`
`46. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all foregoing paragraphs as if they were
`
`
`
`set forth fully herein.
`
`47. Defendants are employers covered by the FMLA pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
`
`§ 2601 et seq.; 29 USC § 2611.
`
`48. Plaintiff was entitled to leave under the FMLA, and was qualified to
`
`enjoy its protections as set forth above.
`
`49. Defendants engaged in prohibited conduct under the FMLA by
`
`retaliating against Plaintiff for invoking protections of the Act.
`
`50. Namely, as described above, Defendants approved Plaintiff for FMLA
`
`leave, but demoted her to a position where she made significantly less upon her
`
`return to work.
`
`51. Defendants’ actions were intentional, with deliberate disregard for the
`
`rights and sensibilities of the Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-12868-MAG-CI ECF No. 1 filed 10/27/20 PageID.11 Page 11 of 14
`
`52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongdoing, Plaintiff
`
`has sustained loss of earnings and earning capacity, past and future lost earnings, the
`
`value of fringe and retirement benefits, loss of job and career opportunities, damage
`
`to her good name and reputation in the community, mental and emotional distress,
`
`humiliation and embarrassment, loss of the enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of
`
`life.
`
`COUNT II
`Violations of the Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act
`
`53. Plaintiff repeats and realleges all foregoing paragraphs as if they were
`
`set forth fully herein.
`
`54. Plaintiff is a disabled person within the meaning of the PWDCRA
`
`because she actually and currently has, a record of, or is regarded as having a
`
`physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
`
`55. Defendants are a covered entity under the PWDCRA, pursuant to MCL
`
`37.1201(b).
`
`56. Defendants knew of Plaintiff’s disability and/or perceived Plaintiff as
`
`disabled.
`
`57. Plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job with
`
`reasonable accommodation.
`
`58. Plaintiff suggested several reasonable accommodations, such as
`
`continuing to work from home, a hybrid schedule of coming into the Hospital and
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-12868-MAG-CI ECF No. 1 filed 10/27/20 PageID.12 Page 12 of 14
`
`working from home, or physically showing up to the Hospital but remaining in her
`
`personal office so as to limit her exposure to COVID-19. Defendants refused to
`
`accommodate Plaintiff, even though accommodating Plaintiff would not have been
`
`an undue burden.
`
`59. Defendants also retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of the
`
`PWDCRA.
`
`60. Plaintiff engaged in activities protected by the Act, when she requested
`
`a reasonable accommodation for her disability.
`
`61. Defendants nonetheless took a materially adverse action against
`
`Plaintiff by demoting her because she requested a reasonable accommodation.
`
`62. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts, Plaintiff
`
`has sustained injuries and damages including but not limited to: loss of earnings and
`
`earning capacity, loss of career opportunities, loss of fringe benefits, mental anguish,
`
`physical and emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment, loss of professional
`
`reputation, and loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including the right to
`
`pursue gainful employment of her choice.
`
`63. Defendants violated the PWDCRA by discriminating and retaliating
`
`against Plaintiff by interfering with her right to receive benefits and demoting her
`
`because of a disability that was unrelated to her ability to perform the job, and/or
`
`because she was regarded as having a disability.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-12868-MAG-CI ECF No. 1 filed 10/27/20 PageID.13 Page 13 of 14
`
`64. Defendants’ actions were intentional, with deliberate disregard for the
`
`rights and sensibilities of the Plaintiff.
`
`Relief Requested
`
`Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows:
`
`A. Legal Relief:
`
`
`
`1. Compensatory damages in whatever amount she is found to be
`entitled;
`
`
`2. Exemplary damages in whatever amount she is found to be
`entitled;
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Punitive damages in whatever amount she is found to be entitled;
`and
`
`
`4. An award of interest, costs, reasonable attorney fees, and expert
`witness fees.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Equitable Relief:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`An injunction from this Court prohibiting any further acts of
`wrongdoing or retaliation against Plaintiff;
`
`2. An order from this Court placing Plaintiff in the position she
` would have been in had there been no wrongdoing by Defendant,
`
`including reinstatement with back pay;
`
`3. Declaratory relief stating that Defendants discriminated against
` Plaintiff in violation of federal and state law;
`
`4. An award of front pay;
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-12868-MAG-CI ECF No. 1 filed 10/27/20 PageID.14 Page 14 of 14
`
`5. An award of interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees; and
`
`6. Whatever other equitable relief appears appropriate at the time
`of final judgment.
`
`
`Dated: October 27, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEBORAH GORDON LAW
`Deborah L. Gordon (P27058)
`Elizabeth Marzotto Taylor (P82061)
`Sarah Gordon Thomas (P83935)
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220
`Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
`(248) 258-2500/fax (248) 258-7881
`dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com
`emarzottotaylor@deborahgordonlaw.com
`sthomas@deborahgordonlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`Plaintiff Tracy Hack, by and through her attorneys Deborah Gordon Law,
`
`demands a trial by jury of all the issues in this cause.
`
`Dated: October 27, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEBORAH GORDON LAW
`Deborah L. Gordon (P27058)
`Elizabeth Marzotto Taylor (P82061)
`Sarah Gordon Thomas (P83935)
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220
`Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304
`(248) 258-2500/fax (248) 258-7881
`dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com
`emarzottotaylor@deborahgordonlaw.com
`sthomas@deborahgordonlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`