## Facts

- Nancy Murray worked as a staff nurse for UHS of Fairmount, Inc. at Fairmount Behavioral Health System from June 2007 until she was terminated on May 15, 2009.
- Murray had a history of depression and took two medical leaves: December 24, 2008 to January 7, 2009, and April 27, 2009 to May 4, 2009.
- After one leave, Murray told a charge nurse in confidence that the absence related to depression; the charge nurse stated she did not share Murray’s mental-health information with others at UHS.
- UHS management and Human Resources were aware Murray had medical absences, but the documentation provided to support her leave did not specify depression, and the HR director testified she did not recall the reasons for the absences.
- About two weeks after Murray returned from her second leave, UHS identified two narcotics-related documentation/accounting problems connected to Murray’s shift: (1) a failure to obtain a witness signature for disposal of a refused narcotic dose, and (2) a discrepancy between the number of doses Murray acknowledged receiving and the number later accounted for on the unit.
- The chief nursing officer discovered the mistakes and, together with the human-resources director, decided to terminate Murray for the narcotics-related errors.
- Murray sued UHS alleging that her termination violated the FMLA (interference and retaliation) and the ADA (disability discrimination and retaliation), including a theory that UHS perceived her as disabled due to depression.
- During the case, Murray died and her estate was substituted as the plaintiff.
- UHS moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether UHS retaliated against Murray for taking FMLA-qualifying leave.
2. Whether UHS discriminated against Murray under the ADA (as amended) because of an actual disability (depression).
3. Whether UHS discriminated against Murray under the ADA because it perceived her as having a disability.
4. Whether UHS retaliated against Murray for protected activity under the ADA.
5. Whether UHS’s stated reason for termination (narcotics documentation/accounting violations) was a pretext for unlawful discrimination or retaliation.

## Decision

- The court granted UHS’s motion for summary judgment.
- The FMLA interference claim was treated as withdrawn and, in any event, the record did not show denial of leave or refusal to reinstate Murray after leave.
- On FMLA retaliation, the court found insufficient evidence that the decisionmakers terminated Murray because of protected leave rather than because of the narcotics-related incidents; timing alone did not create a triable issue.
- On ADA discrimination (actual disability and perceived disability), the court found the record did not support that the termination decision was made because of Murray’s depression; the evidence showed the decision was based on the narcotics errors and there was no adequate proof that depression drove the outcome.
- On ADA retaliation, the court found no evidence from which a reasonable jury could link any protected ADA activity to the termination decision.
- Even assuming a prima facie showing on one or more theories, UHS articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharge (serious medication-handling documentation/accounting problems), and the plaintiff did not produce sufficient evidence of pretext (including a lack of meaningful comparator evidence and no showing that the stated reason was false).

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- FMLA retaliation requires evidence that protected leave was a determinative factor in the adverse action; a plaintiff must present evidence supporting causation, and timing by itself is generally not enough where the employer provides a well-supported nonretaliatory explanation.
- ADA discriminatory-discharge claims require evidence that the adverse action was taken “because of” disability (or perceived disability); proof that the employer knew of, or perceived, the impairment is commonly part of showing causation.
- Under the ADAAA, a “regarded as” theory focuses on whether the employee was subjected to an adverse action because of an actual or perceived impairment (subject to limits for impairments that are transitory and minor); generalized awareness of medical absences, without more, may be insufficient to show the adverse action was because of a perceived impairment.
- Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, once the employer produces a legitimate reason for discharge, the plaintiff must point to evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that reason was not the real reason and that discrimination or retaliation was.

## Conclusion

The court entered judgment for UHS because the record supported termination based on narcotics-related documentation/accounting errors, and the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence that Murray’s FMLA leave or depression (actual or perceived) caused the firing or that UHS’s stated reason was a pretext for discrimination or retaliation.


Murray et al. v. UHS of Fairmount, Inc., 2011 WL 5449364 (2011)