Rodriguez v. Reston Hosp. Ctr., LLC — Feb. 2017 (Summary)

FALSE CLAIMS ACT AND FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT

Rodriguez v. Reston Hosp. Ctr., LLC
No. 1:16-cv-623 (JCC/JFA) (E.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2017)

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a hospital’s motion to dismiss claims brought by a former employee alleging violations of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

The plaintiff, an x-ray technologist and staff supervisor, informed hospital management of his concerns regarding competency assessments of staff.  After this, the hospital posted an opening for a staff position in its radiology department.  The plaintiff removed an applicant from consideration on the basis that her previous firing precluded her from being eligible for the position.  The hospital’s human resources team revised the plaintiff’s decision and reinstated the application.  In the meantime, the plaintiff responded to a request from a second applicant about the open position.  The second applicant was eventually hired and, shortly thereafter, the plaintiff’s supervisor demoted him, allegedly for failure to report a workplace violence incident.  The plaintiff’s new role required training and supervision, which he alleged was provided inadequately and unreasonably.  The plaintiff then underwent shoulder surgery and obtained FMLA leave.  When the plaintiff returned to work, his supervisor required him to complete a “return to work” plan, something that the radiology department had not typically required.  When the plaintiff requested that his supervisor return paperwork that was necessary to complete the training and supervision requirements, the supervisor failed to do so.  Shortly afterward, the supervisor did not extend the training and supervision period to account for the duration of the FMLA leave and the plaintiff was terminated.  The plaintiff sued the hospital claiming violations of the FCA and FMLA.

Weighing in on the FMLA claim, the court held that the plaintiff took FMLA leave, was terminated, and provided sufficient facts to establish a causal connection between the two.  The court also found that the hospital interfered with the plaintiff’s FMLA leave, by placing additional requirements on the plaintiff’s return to work.  As to the FCA claim, the court found that the plaintiff adequately demonstrated that he engaged in “protected activity” by reporting his competency assessment concerns to management and was subsequently terminated; therefore, the court determined the plaintiff appropriately demonstrated that the reason for his dismissal could have been retaliatory in violation of the FCA.  Accordingly, the court denied the hospital’s motion to dismiss.