throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`NASHVILLE DIVISION
`
`
`
`OLIVIA MILLER,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`TRISTAR HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. d/b/a/
`SARAH CANNON CANCER CENTER and
`HEALTHCARE CORPORATION
`OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`Judge
`Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
` Defendant.
`___________________________________/
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Defendants TriStar Health System, Inc., d/b/a Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, (“Sarah
`
`
`
`Cannon,”) and Healthcare Corporation of America, (“HCA”) ignored the plain language of the
`
`ADAAA when it refused to accommodate, created a hostile work environment and then terminated
`
`Plaintiff, Olivia Miller (“Ms. Miller”), due to her disability and complaints of discrimination and
`
`failure to accommodate. For almost ten years, Ms. Miller worked without incident at HCA, most
`
`recently as a Cancer Conference Coordinator at Sarah Cannon. After she requested a reasonable
`
`accommodation and leave pursuant to the FMLA, she was retaliated against, suffered a hostile work
`
`environment, and was terminated after she complained about her treatment and the failure to
`
`accommodate her. Sarah Cannon and HCA violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the
`
`Tennessee Disability Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Olivia Miller, (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Miller”) is a citizen and resident of
`
`Nolensville, Davidson County, Tennessee, and a former employee of Defendant. Plaintiff worked
`
`at Defendant’s Nashville, Tennessee location.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00556 Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1
`
`1
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Defendant TriStar Health System, Inc., d/b/a Sarah Cannon Cancer Center, (“Sarah
`
`Cannon,”) is a Tennessee for-profit corporation. Its registered agent for service of process is CT
`
`Corporation System, 300 Montvue Road, Knoxville, TN 37919-5546.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Healthcare Corporation of America, Inc. (“HCA”) is a Tennessee for-
`
`profit corporation. Its registered agent for service of process is Ronald C. Marston, 2020 Fieldstone
`
`Pkwy, Suite 900-162, Franklin, TN 37069-4337.
`
`4.
`
`At all material times, Defendants have been an employer as defined by the ADA,
`
`42 U.S.C. § 12111.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability under 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(g) and
`
`(h)(1).
`
`6.
`
`At all material times, Defendant has been an employer as defined by the Tennessee
`
`Disabilities Act, T.C.A. § 8-50-103 (“TDA”).
`
`7.
`
`At all times material to this action, based on information and belief, Defendant has
`
`employed 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar
`
`workweeks in 2019 and/or 2020 and is an "employer" as defined by the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 26o1.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This is an action for unlawful employment practices brought under the Americans
`
`with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et. seq. (“ADA”), as amended by the ADA Amendments
`
`Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”) (Counts I - II) the Tennessee Disability Act, T.C.A. § 8-50-103 (“TDA”)
`
`(Counts III and IV), and the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (Count V).
`
`9.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(4), and 1367(a).
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff complied with all conditions precedent to the filing of her claims pursuant
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00556 Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 2
`
`2
`
`

`

`to 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq, to wit: a charge of discrimination was filed with the Equal
`
`Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) within 300 days of the unlawful employment
`
`practice; the EEOC issued Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue for the charge and this action was
`
`commenced within 90 days of receipt of Notice of Right to Sue.
`
`FACTS
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff, Olivia Miller, was employed by Defendant from 2011 until her
`
`termination on August 28, 2020.
`
`12. Ms. Miller is a qualified individual with a disability under 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(h)(2).
`
`In particular, she has a mental or psychological disorder which affects major life activities of caring
`
`for oneself, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, and
`
`working. Moreover, her disability affects the major bodily systems of the psychological and
`
`neurological systems.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant Sarah Cannon is the cancer center of HCA which provides integrated
`
`cancer treatments to those facing cancer in communities in the United States and United Kingdom.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant HCA is the parent company to Defendant Sarah Cannon.
`
`Defendants employ more than 75 employees at its Nashville, Tennessee location.
`
`16. Ms. Miller was employed as a Cancer Conference Coordinator and in that role, she
`
`was responsible for coordinating and documenting cancer conferences and tumor board meetings
`
`at assigned facilities.
`
`17.
`
`From January 21, 2020, until July 2020, Ms. Miller was on FMLA leave for her
`
`disability. When she returned to work, her company-issued laptop had significant issues as a result
`
`of being off network during her FMLA leave. Ms. Miller reported the laptop issues to her
`
`supervisor, Melissa Rinker and also reported the issues to her company’s IT Department.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00556 Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 3
`
`3
`
`

`

`18.
`
` Despite reporting these issues, she was given a verbal warning for not completing
`
`an assignment by a deadline, however completion was impossible without the use of a laptop
`
`computer.
`
`19.
`
`She explained to her supervisor that she had been directed by IT to send in the
`
`computer and was waiting for a replacement. She gave her supervisor proof of the technical issues
`
`she was experiencing.
`
`20.
`
`On a conference call, her supervisor was antagonistic and unhelpful, and placed the
`
`blame on Ms. Miller stating, "well then I guess you just can't work," and "if you don't have a
`
`computer you can't work, and we are not just handing out laptops." Ms. Miller escalated the issue
`
`to her Director, who stated that she could not work nor be paid for an indefinite amount of time
`
`until the laptop was fixed.
`
`21.
`
`On information and belief, no other employees who experienced technical issues or
`
`inoperable equipment were forced on unpaid leave nor told that they could not work. Rather, other
`
`employees were given operable equipment to use and/or any technical issues were addressed
`
`swiftly to minimize downtime.
`
`22. Ms. Miller went to Human Resources to complain that her supervisor and Director
`
`were telling her that she would be unpaid. She also reported that the supervisor and Director
`
`laughed at her when she asked if she would be paid.
`
`23.
`
`After she returned from leave, Ms. Miller was subjected to strict scrutiny of her
`
`work output, including scrutinizing and criticizing time she was off-line, including small breaks
`
`she took to use the restroom.
`
`24. Ms. Miller’s doctor, concerned she would have a major setback, sent a letter to HR
`
`explaining her disabilities and requested two accommodations: 1) extra time to complete
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00556 Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 4
`
`4
`
`

`

`assignments when possible/appropriate, and 2) a flexible start time between 6am and 8am due to
`
`her medication schedule.
`
`25. Ms. Miller, according to Defendants’ policies, submitted the letter from her doctor
`
`and a written request for accommodations on July 16, 2020.
`
`26.
`
` On July 23, 2020, Ms. Miller had a call with HR to discuss her accommodations,
`
`which constitutes protected activity under the ADA. During this meeting, Ms. Miller engaged in
`
`further protected activity by complaining about a retaliatory work environment ever since her
`
`FMLA leave and her request for accommodations. Specifically, she related incidents where her
`
`Director laughed at her and mocked her disability and when her manager screamed at her. HR
`
`never investigated her complaints.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants refused to accommodate Ms. Miller and such refusal exacerbated her
`
`disability to such a point that she needed to seek additional time off work.
`
`28.
`
`On July 30, 2020, Ms. Miller’s doctor placed her back on full-time leave to titrate
`
`onto new medications.
`
`29.
`
`Following company policy, Ms. Miller contacted the third party administrator
`
`(“TPA”) for HCA's leave of absence policy and was told to "Go on and go out today and we'll get
`
`the paperwork to your doctor." Following this instruction, Ms. Miller remained on leave.
`
`30.
`
`Sometime in August, Ms. Miller received a letter stating she was fired for
`
`abandoning her position. Upon inquiry, Ms. Miller learned that the TPA alleged it never received
`
`the paperwork from her doctor, however, after it was re-submitted, the TPA approved the leave.
`
`31.
`
` Ms. Miller notified HCA that her leave had been retroactively approved, however
`
`she was told, they were unable to ascertain an effective accommodation that would allow her to
`
`perform the essential duties related to her job, and she was terminated effective August 28, 2020.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00556 Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5
`
`5
`
`

`

`Count I
`Violation of ADA/ADAAA- Disability Discrimination
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the above paragraphs in their entirety.
`
`Pursuant to the ADAAA, an individual is considered to have a disability if she has
`
`a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a
`
`record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such impairment.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability; she had a disorder that affected
`
`her psychological and neurological systems, and was an impairment that substantially limited her
`
`in one or more major life activities.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff on the basis of her disability
`
`in violation of the ADA that culminated in her termination.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff could perform the essential functions of her job. Plaintiff made a request
`
`for reasonable accommodation, including, but not limited to, a flexible start time, extra breaks, and
`
`extra time for assignments.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff was discriminated against and eventually terminated because of her
`
`disability and/or in retaliation for her request for a reasonable accommodation.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant failed to engage in a good faith interactive process to determine a
`
`reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s disability.
`
`39.
`
`The adverse actions Plaintiff endured, included, a discriminatory hostile work
`
`environment, failure to accommodate and termination because of her disability and requests for
`
`accommodation.
`
`40.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful acts, Plaintiff suffered
`
`and continues to suffer emotional pain, suffering, professional and personal embarrassment,
`
`humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience and lost earnings and benefits.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00556 Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 6
`
`6
`
`

`

`41.
`
`As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to recover her damages, including lost wages and
`
`benefits, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, reinstatement, front
`
`pay and benefits, and any other legal and equitable relief to which she may be entitled.
`
`Count II
`Violation of ADAAA- Retaliation
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the foregoing paragraphs.
`
`It is federal public policy and law under the Americans with Disabilities Act that
`
`employees must be able to exercise their rights under state law without fear of reprisal or penalty
`
`from an employer.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff engaged in protected activity under the ADA when she requested an
`
`accommodation and objected to and protested disability discrimination and a retaliatory hostile
`
`work environment in the workplace. Plaintiff requested an accommodation and reported disability
`
`discrimination to Human Resources. Such actions by the Plaintiff are statutorily protected
`
`activities under ADAAA.
`
`45.
`
`In violation of the ADAAA, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by subjecting
`
`Plaintiff to a retaliatory hostile work environment, refusing to accommodate her disability, putting
`
`unnecessary roadblocks in the way of her obtaining an accommodation, refusing to engage in an
`
`interactive process and discharging her employment in retaliation for exercising her rights under
`
`the ADAAA.
`
`46.
`
`Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff because of her protected activity by taking
`
`adverse action against Plaintiff. As a result of Plaintiff’s request for an accommodation, and report
`
`of discrimination and harassment, Defendant took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff
`
`for a pretextual reason which culminated in her termination.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00556 Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 7
`
`7
`
`

`

`47.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful acts, Plaintiff suffered
`
`and continues to suffer emotional pain, suffering, professional and personal embarrassment,
`
`humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience and lost earnings and benefits.
`
`Count III
`Violation of TDA- Disability Discrimination
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the above paragraphs in their entirety.
`
`Pursuant to the TDA, an individual is considered to have a disability if he or she
`
`has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff was a qualified individual with a disability.
`
`Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her disability in violation
`
`of the TDA that culminated in her termination.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff was discriminated against and eventually terminated because of her
`
`disability.
`
`53.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful acts, Plaintiff suffered
`
`and continues to suffer emotional pain, suffering, professional and personal embarrassment,
`
`humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience and lost earnings and benefits.
`
`54.
`
`As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to recover her damages, including lost wages and
`
`benefits, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, reinstatement, front
`
`pay and benefits, and any other legal and equitable relief to which she may be entitled.
`
`Count IV
`Violation of TDA- Retaliation
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the foregoing paragraphs.
`
`It is the public policy and state law of Tennessee that employees must be able to
`
`exercise their rights under state law without fear of reprisal or penalty from an employer.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00556 Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 8
`
`8
`
`

`

`57.
`
`Plaintiff objected to and protested disability discrimination in the workplace. Such
`
`actions by the Plaintiff are statutorily protected activities under TDA.
`
`58.
`
`In violation of the TDA, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff discharging her
`
`employment in retaliation for exercising her rights under the TDAA.
`
`59.
`
`Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff because of her protected activity by taking
`
`adverse action against Plaintiff. As a result of Plaintiff’s complaints and protests of disability
`
`discrimination in the workplace, Defendant took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff for
`
`a pretextual reason.
`
`60.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful acts, Plaintiff suffered
`
`and continues to suffer emotional pain, suffering, professional and personal embarrassment,
`
`humiliation, loss of enjoyment of life, inconvenience and lost earnings and benefits.
`
`Count V
`Violation of FMLA
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff restates and incorporates herein the foregoing paragraphs.
`
`Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for taking FMLA protected leave.
`
`Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s FMLA rights.
`
`At all times material to this action, Plaintiff was an eligible employee under the
`
`FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(2)(a)(i)(ii).
`
`Defendant is an eligible employer under the FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2611(4)(A)(i).
`
`Plaintiff was entitled to receive FMLA leave to care for her own serious health
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`condition.
`
`67.
`
`Defendant subjected Plaintiff to disparate terms and conditions of employment after
`
`she requested and took FMLA, including but not limited to creating a hostile work environment
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00556 Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 9
`
`9
`
`

`

`which exacerbated her condition, retaliating against her after she requested and took FMLA leave,
`
`forcing her to exhaust her federally-protected leave, and terminating her.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff was entitled to receive FMLA on an intermittent and continuous basis.
`
`Defendant interfered with Plaintiff’s right to take FMLA leave by forcing her to
`
`take excessive FMLA leave and by terminating her after it was exhausted.
`
`70.
`
`Defendant’s actions constitute interference and/or retaliation violations of the
`
`FMLA.
`
`71.
`
`Defendant’s conduct was a motivating factor in adverse employment actions
`
`against Plaintiff.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Defendant’s conduct harmed and caused damage to Plaintiff.
`
`As a result, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, including lost wages and
`
`benefits, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, interest, reinstatement, front pay and benefits,
`
`and any other legal and equitable relief to which she may be entitled.
`
`
`
`
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Plaintiff respectfully requests:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`A jury trial;
`
`Back pay and damages for lost benefits, insurance and reimbursement for
`
`medical costs due to the loss of her insurance;
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Reinstatement or front pay;
`
`Compensatory damages for embarrassment, humiliation, stress, anxiety,
`
`inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life;
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Punitive damages;
`
`Liquidated damages under the FMLA;
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00556 Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 10
`
`10
`
`

`

`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Attorneys’ fees and expenses;
`
`Prejudgment interest and, if applicable, post-judgment interest; and
`
`Such other and further legal or equitable relief to which she may be entitled
`
`under the ADAAA, the TDA, the FMLA and any other statutory or common law.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s Heather Moore Collins
`Heather Moore Collins BPR # 026099
`Anne Hunter BPR # 022407
`Ashley Shoemaker Walter BPR# 037651
`Collins & Hunter PLLC
`7000 Executive Center Drive, Suite 320
`Brentwood, TN 37027
`615-724-1996
`
`615-691-7019 FAX
`heather@collinshunter.com
`anne@collinshunter.com
`ashley@collinshunter.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00556 Document 1 Filed 07/22/21 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 11
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket