Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A hospital director who claimed she couldn’t wear a mask to work during COVID due to her anxiety failed to convince the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that her discrimination and retaliation claims against her former employer should be revived.
Anna Kinney was working as director of imaging services at St. Vincent Hospital in Evansville when her employer approved her request for intermittent medical leave due to anxiety in 2018.
Then in 2020, Kinney began working remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Once safety protocols were developed, her co-workers returned to work in person at the hospital, but Kinney did not.
Instead, Kinney kept working from home without asking permission or notifying her supervisor. She claimed she couldn’t wear a face mask — which was part of the hospital’s protocol — because it exacerbated her anxiety.
However, her absence led to complaints and questions about her job performance, so hospital management said she needed to come in at least several days each week.
Kinney submitted a doctor’s note requesting that she be allowed to work solely from home, but hospital management denied the request and later requests for accommodations. Kinney eventually resigned.
She then sued the hospital under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that her employer failed to accommodate her disability, discriminated against her by denying her requested accommodation and constructively discharging her, and retaliated against her with the constructive discharge.
Kinney also brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging a hostile workplace, discrimination based on her sex in failing to select her for multiple promotions and retaliation in the form of constructive discharge. She also brought a retaliation claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted summary judgment for the hospital on all claims.
Kinney appealed the summary judgment ruling only as to her ADA, failure-to-promote and retaliation claims.
In affirming summary judgment for the hospital, the 7th Circuit first looked at Kinney’s requested accommodations.
“Kinney initially requested to work entirely from home. She later amended her request to work in person two days a week for six hours each day, but ‘perform[ing] as many of her responsibilities as possible in her office using remote technology so the mask wearing is kept to a minimum.’ Her doctor wrote that mask wearing ‘should be limited as much as possible to time frames near 15 minutes each or as tolerated,’” Senior Judge David Hamilton wrote.
“This requested accommodation would not have enabled Kinney to perform the essential functions of her job. Even if she had received her requested accommodation and had gone to the hospital two days a week, she was still asking to avoid performing the supervisory and liaison tasks that required being in person, moving through her department, and interacting with staff. The request was not for a reasonable accommodation because it would have allowed Kinney to avoid performing tasks essential to her job rather than helped her to accomplish them,” Hamilton wrote.
The appellate court next turned to Kinney’s Title VII claims, which involved two instances where Kinney was denied a promotion: once when she applied to be the Warrick County Hospital administrator, and later when she applied to be vice president of finance for the larger St. Mary’s Health System.
As for the former, “The employer said it chose another candidate because he had relevant experience and superior interview performance, which can be a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for hiring,” Hamilton wrote.
And as for the latter, “there is no doubt that the chosen candidate had more directly relevant credentials and experience in finance than Kinney did.”
Finally, as to Kinney’s claims of discrimination and retaliation under the ADA and retaliation under Title VII, the appellate court upheld the district court’s conclusion that Kinney didn’t offer evidence of an adverse employment action.
“These facts do not support a finding of constructive discharge,” Hamilton concluded. “Kinney has not offered evidence that she suffered an adverse employment action, so summary judgment for the employer was proper on her claims of discrimination under the ADA and retaliation under both the ADA and Title VII.”
The case is Anna Kinney v. St. Mary’s Health, Inc., doing business as St. Vincent Evansville, 22-2740.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.