Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marshall v. EyeCare Specialties, P.C. of Lincoln

Supreme Court of Nebraska

March 25, 2016

CINDY MARSHALL, APPELLANT,
v.
EYECARE SPECIALTIES, P.C. OF LINCOLN, APPELLEE

Page 373

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 374

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 375

Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: JOHN A. COLBORN, Judge. On motion for rehearing, reargument granted. See 291 Neb. 264, 865 N.W.2d 343 (2015), for original opinion. Original opinion withdrawn.

Abby Osborn and Joy Shiffermiller, of Shiffermiller Law Office, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

Shawn D. Renner, Susan K. Sapp, and Tara A. Stingley, of Cline, Williams, Wright, Johnson & Oldfather, L.L.P., for appellee.

HEAVICAN, C.J., CONNOLLY, MILLER-LERMAN, and CASSEL, JJ., and IRWIN, INBODY, and PIRTLE, Judges. WRIGHT and STACY, JJ., not participating.

OPINION

Page 376

[293 Neb. 93] Connolly, J.

I. SUMMARY

This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by EyeCare Specialties, P.C. of Lincoln (EyeCare Specialties). EyeCare Specialties employed Cindy Marshall as an optical technician from 2007 until it terminated her employment in 2012. Marshall sued EyeCare Specialties, alleging that it discriminated against her because it regarded her as disabled. The district court sustained EyeCare Specialties' motion for summary judgment, and Marshall appealed.

We filed an opinion deciding the appeal on July 2, 2015,[1] but we later sustained EyeCare Specialties' motion for rehearing. We now withdraw our former opinion. Marshall created a dispute of material fact concerning whether EyeCare Specialties discriminated against her because of her skin condition and tremors, which EyeCare Specialties perceived to substantially limit her ability to work. She did not create a fact question concerning whether EyeCare Specialties discriminated against her because of a perceived disability related to her past prescription drug abuse. We therefore reverse, and remand for further proceedings.

[293 Neb. 94] II. BACKGROUND

In January 2007, EyeCare Specialties hired Marshall as an optical technician. Marshall previously worked as a registered nurse but " lost [her] nursing license" because of prescription drug abuse. Marshall said that she successfully completed treatment and did not abuse prescription drugs while she worked for EyeCare Specialties. She told her coworkers about her past drug abuse because they asked why she no longer worked as a nurse.

1. Employment Actions in 2007

In Marshall's first performance evaluation in March 2007, her scores were excellent or above average in every category except one. But she quickly became the subject of complaints from coworkers. In May 2007, a coworker said that Marshall had " a hard time staying focused on the flow" and got " very shakey [sic] more towards

Page 377

afternoon." Marshall told the coworker she was taking over-the-counter diet pills, which the coworker speculated might be causing Marshall's shakiness. In June, another coworker saw Marshall furtively " taking medications" at work. Yet another coworker said that " random drug testing NEEDS to be implemented." Marshall received a corrective action in June, signed by her " Team Leader" and the " Administration," stating that she needed to improve her " [i]nterpersonal issues with coworkers" and " [q]uality of work . . . ."

Marshall told EyeCare Specialties' administrators that she took " diet pills," in addition to medication to control her blood pressure and headaches. She later admitted that the diet pills might have worsened her " tremors." The administrators suggested that Marshall allay her coworkers' suspicion by setting her pill bottles on the table where others could see them.

2. Employment Actions From 2008 Through 2011

The record suggests that Marshall's next 4 years at EyeCare Specialties were relatively quiet. Her May 2008 performance [293 Neb. 95] evaluation scored her as excellent or above average in all nine categories, including quality and productivity. The evaluation noted, though, that Marshall " [s]ometimes gets nervous with multitasking" and needed to " work on steady flow and not getting flustered."

In Marshall's March 2009 performance evaluation, her scores were excellent or above average in eight categories and satisfactory in one. The evaluation urged Marshall to not " spend too much time with challenging cases." In Marshall's June 2010 evaluation, which used a different rubric than the prior evaluations, the mean of her performance ratings was " Meets Requirements." The evaluation stated that Marshall " has had a few issues with tardy arrivals" but was improving.

Marshall received a slightly better rating in her March 2011 evaluation. The optometrists' comments were generally positive, although they noted that Marshall occasionally took too much time with a " tough patient" or a " difficult refraction." In April, the clinic coordinator expressed concerns about Marshall's inefficiency, tension with coworkers, and " attitude problem." An optometrist replied that Marshall was " very nervous and not good at multitasking."

3. Employment Actions in 2012

In 2012, Marshall's employment situation turned for the worse. On January 9, a coworker approached Laura Houdesheldt, EyeCare Specialties' human resources director, and said that Marshall was " very slow and getting slower." The coworker said that Marshall was " nervous," " confused," " 'itching,'" and " shaking," and was taking what looked like diet pills.

Houdesheldt had a discussion with Marshall on January 9, 2012, culminating in a documented " verbal" warning. The corrective action plan stated that Marshall was " not doing her fair share."

Later, on January 24, 2012, Marshall and Houdesheldt had another talk about Marshall's performance. During their conversation, Houdesheldt observed " red, raw-looking scratches [293 Neb. 96] on [Marshall's] right arm" and " some open sores that appeared to be wet." Houdesheldt said that Marshall's hands were " shaking quite a bit."

After her conversation with Marshall, Houdesheldt spoke to several of Marshall's coworkers. One coworker said she was " worried that [Marshall] was taking diet pills at work" and that Marshall's paranoia and confusion were increasing. The coworker

Page 378

reported that Marshall had told previous coworkers she had a " history of substance abuse." Houdesheldt later testified that she did not " perceive [Marshall] as having a drug or alcohol problem."

On January 26, 2012, Houdesheldt spoke with an optometrist who was concerned about Marshall's " inconsistent pace." The optometrist was also worried that Marshall jeopardized the patients' safety because she shook while ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.