Mary N. Yurick

In Pelphrey-Weingand, the plaintiff was the defendant’s assistant director/clinical supervisor –  effectively the second in command. The plaintiff claimed she was subjected to “incessant mistreatment,” discrimination, retaliation, and unlawful mismanagement. Ultimately, the plaintiff was terminated just over a year into her tenure for poor performance. The plaintiff’s complaint asserted fifteen state and federal claims relating to unlawful discrimination, whistleblower, and retaliation claims. She alleged that she was the victim of discrimination based on age, disability, worker’s compensation status, race, religion, refusal to violate the FMLA, refusal to violate the Adult Protective Services Act, whistleblower status, and refusal to commit an unlawful act.

In addressing plaintiff’s claims, the court specifically noted the “kitchen sink” complaint. In addressing the fact that the plaintiff alleged that the defendant employer discriminated against her on “almost every protected class imaginable,” the court stated, “[w]hile an employer so broadly hateful is, perhaps, not impossible, such allegations by their very nature strain credulity to its outer limits.” The court continued, “[t]his Court has significant doubts that any but the most specific and meritorious ‘kitchen sink’ complaint could possibly clear the bar set collectively by Twombly, Iqbal, and Rule 11.”

Even after being given the opportunity to narrow her claims, the plaintiff indicated that she intended to pursue all fifteen. As a result, the court spent time addressing each claim in its opinion, noting instances where co-workers may have been unkind to her and likely did not like her, the defendant employer advanced a “fulsome record” regarding the plaintiff’s failure to satisfactorily complete her job duties.  The plaintiff received multiple written warnings, plans of correction, numerous one-on-one supervisions, and a final written warning before her termination. Several of the issues that the plaintiff received warnings about could have put the licensure of the defendant employer at risk. The court found that the defendant employer had put forth significant evidence showing that the decisionmaker had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason to terminate plaintiff’s employment.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant employer on all by the plaintiff’s wage payment and collection. With regard to that claim, the court held that it was unwilling to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and directed that plaintiff could bring the claim in state court if she chose.  The court noted that while the record did show that co-workers may have harbored some “poor feelings” for the plaintiff, were likely unkind to plaintiff, and that the plaintiff was not the best social fit for the defendant employer, non-discrimination statutes do not codify a general code of civility. The plaintiff could not prove, based on the record, that any discrimination occurred. The court concluded that this case is a cautionary tale for “borderline” cases - instead of filing “kitchen sink” complaint, parties should take an “acute and sharpened approach,” and focus on their best arguments.