A judge ruled in favor of the University last week in a lawsuit filed by a former employee who believed his medical leave resulted in unfair treatment and subsequent termination.
Lynn Woolfe, who worked as a laboratory preparer, sued the University on the grounds that he was wrongly discriminated against when he returned to work after taking medical leave, and as a result “suffered ongoing and severe depression and anxiety which has made him unable to perform gainful employment for a period of at least one year,” according to court documents. Woolfe wanted compensation in the amount of $140,000.
Woolfe’s trouble with the University began in May 2004, when the University suspended him with pay in order to investigate a sexual harassment complaint that had apparently spawned from a former co-worker of Woolfe’s. Later, the co-worker said she did not believe Woolfe harassed her, but the University never informed Woolfe of that fact, the suit alleges. The University denied the accusation.
Later that month, Woolfe visited his physician, who placed him on medical leave through late-June because of “an acute exacerbation of his chronic pre-existing conditions of depression and anxiety.” Woolfe said he continued to suffer from intermittent anxiety attacks and depression after his medical leave concluded that kept him from working. The University notified Woolfe of his “excessive absenteeism, tardiness, lack of dependability, and violations of safety protocols regarding lab preparation” numerous times. Then, in fall 2005, things got messy.
Despite Woolfe’s notification from the University that he no longer qualified for job protection under the Federal or Oregon Family Leave Acts, he continued to miss work. The University fired Woolfe in October 2005. In his complaint filed with the Lane County Circuit Court, Woolfe said his termination resulted from his recurring need for medical care, but Circuit Judge Charles D. Carlson determined the reason was chronic absence because there was not sufficient evidence to the contrary.
In June 2007, Woolfe formally filed the complaint. He cited multiple reasons for the lawsuit: intentional infliction of “extreme emotional distress” on the part of the University, concealment of his co-worker discrediting the sexual harassment claim, and unfair treatment due to his medical issues and leave taken.
Carlson refuted all of these claims Jan. 10 in response to the University’s motion for summary judgment. Because Carlson granted the University’s motion and therefore resolved the case, the trial that was scheduled to take place Tuesday didn’t happen.
In the ruling, Carlson said “the University’s conduct did not constitute as a matter of law an extraordinary transgression of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct.” Additionally, Woolfe’s complaints of discrimination due to his medical leave were invalid because they weren’t technically illegal: Woolfe got his job back both times he returned from leave.
Any work rule changes, which Woolfe perceived as punishment for his medical leave, were implemented as a result of the sexual harassment claim. However, in order to receive compensation for those potentially wrongful actions, Woolfe would have had to submit a different type of appeal, for which the deadline has already passed.
Ultimately, Woolfe’s case was unsuccessful because he lacked evidence, the ruling said. All documentation worked in the University’s favor, and it will not be required to compensate Woolfe.
[email protected]