Medical Worker Allegedly Fired for Insubordination, Not Disability
On Feb. 6, 2013, plaintiff Kathryn Carroll, in her 50s, was terminated as a medical records clerk at a Pottsville health facility after a dispute with her office manager over missing patient charts.
May 03, 2018 at 04:25 PM
5 minute read
Carroll v. Comprehensive Women's Health Services
Defense Verdict
Date of Verdict: March 16.
Court and Case No.: U.S. District Court, M.D., Pa., No. 3:16-cv-01509-JMM
Judge: James M. Munley.
Type of Action: Civil Rights, ADA.
Injuries: Mental, psychological, depression.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Ralph E. Lamar IV, Ralph E. Lamar IV, Arvada, Colorado; Marc E. Weinstein, Weinstein Law Firm, Fort Washington.
Defense Counsel: Eric M. Prock, Fanelli, Evans & Patel, Pottsville.
Comment:
On Feb. 6, 2013, plaintiff Kathryn Carroll, in her 50s, was terminated as a medical records clerk at a Pottsville health facility after a dispute with her office manager over missing patient charts.
Carroll had worked at Comprehensive Women's Health Services since 2000. Her tasks included gathering patient charts for physicians and nurses.
On Feb. 4, Carroll had requested and was granted time off to treat breast cancer.
On Feb. 6, an issue arose concerning a missing chart. Carroll became involved in the issue when she received a call from the clinical staff advising her that a patient was at the facility to see a physician but the patient's chart could not be located. In response, Carroll searched the computer and discovered that the patient last saw doctor Timothy Grube. She proceeded to search for the patient's file in Grube's office. The search had gone on for about 20 minutes when office manager Judy Nagle was notified about the missing chart. Nagle was able to locate it in Grube's office rather quickly.
After locating the chart, Nagle asked Carroll to come up to Grube's office so that she could see exactly where the chart was found. Carroll told Nagle that she had looked for the file in the place where it was found, but did not notice it. Nagle then questioned Carroll about why she had missed it. Carroll allegedly responded, “Sometimes you just need another pair of eyes.” According to Nagle, she told Carroll of her concern with the frequency with which she was having to become involved in searching for missing files. Carroll allegedly told Nagle to “find someone else to do the job” and then walked away. Nagle claimed that she called out Carroll's name, but Carroll did not respond and continued to walk away. Carroll denied Nagle's account of the incident. Later that day, Carroll was called into a meeting with Nagle and the principals of the practice, Robert Zimmerman and David Krewson. Carroll was terminated during the meeting for insubordination.
Carroll sued Comprehensive Women's Health Services, Zimmerman and Krewson, alleging that she was fired for her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Zimmerman and Krewson were dismissed, prior to trial.
Carroll denied that she was insubordinate to Nagle and asserted that she was fired because she had requested time off to treat for cancer. She testified about her account of the events regarding the missing chart. She asserted that she had not been insubordinate during the incident.
Her counsel maintained that Carroll had not been afforded the progressive discipline provided for other employees and argued that others had not been terminated for first offenses that involved conduct that was more serious than her alleged conduct.
Zimmerman stated that Carroll was terminated because her conduct was “clear and blatant insubordination,” and that it was unacceptable for an employee to tell a supervisor to find someone else to do the job.
The defense counsel argued that at the termination meeting there was no mention of Carroll's cancer, cancer treatment, genetic testing, workplace accommodations or discrimination. Carroll had never complained about being discriminated against because of her cancer at any point during her employment, counsel asserted.
The defense also noted that, within a nine-month span in 2011 and 2012, Carroll requested six weeks of leave on three separate occasions, and she was afforded that leave, although on each occasion she voluntarily elected to only use three weeks instead of six weeks. The defense presented evidence indicating that Carroll was provided with all the accommodations she requested relative to her cancer diagnosis.
Carroll sought to recover approximately $50,000 in back pay. She was able to find another job in October 2013.
Carroll testified that, following her termination, she had suffered depression and anxiety. She became withdrawn and was unable to leave her home for a number of months. When she started her new job, she second-guessed every decision, due to low self-esteem as a result of her termination. Her husband testified that Carroll's emotional distress had temporarily strained their marriage and that she had improved since the termination but was still not back to being herself. Carroll sought damages for past and future pain and suffering. She also sought punitive damages, which were dismissed after the close of her case, on a motion for judgment as a matter of law made by the defense.
The jury found that Comprehensive Women's Health Services did not discriminate against Carroll in violation of the ADA.
This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiffs and defense counsel.
—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 2‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 3State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 4Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
- 522-Count Indictment Is Just the Start of SCOTUSBlog Atty's Legal Problems, Experts Say
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250