A nurse who suffered a musculoskeletal injury while trying to hold down a combat patient failed to show that she was terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim, a district court hearing held on Monday.
In Marshall v. University of Maryland Medical Center the U.S. District Court of the District of Maryland, found that the health center offered her several services, which she declined for a 14-month period before terminating her employment.
Sheila Marshall began working for the University of Maryland Medical Center in 2009 until her injury in July 2014. She returned to work in light capacity two months after the injury and worked six hours a week while continuing to undergo treatment. In November 201
In November 2015, her doctor decided that she had achieved maximum medical improvement but could no longer work as a bed nurse due to lifting and standing restrictions. In January 2016, a position as an examiner for nursing use became available. Mrs Marshall was offered the job at an hourly rate comparable to her previous position and was told that if she submitted an application, the boarding process to move her to work could begin. However, she failed to apply for the job.
For the next 14 months, she was offered and declined several positions with residents. In April 2017, she graduated.
She lodged a complaint with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that she was discriminated against for claiming compensation for workers and because of her disability and for harassment in the workplace.
the district court dismissed her complaint. Although Marshall claimed that there was a causal link to her testimony at an employment compensation hearing and her dismissal that month, the court found that the evidence did not support a finding of causation, as the hospital "worked hard to find her an alternative permanent position.
The court found that she did not show that the health center discriminated against her because of her disability and noted that she was repeatedly offered several jobs for which she was qualified, as well as physical accommodation including a specialized desk and chair. The court further found sufficient evidence that the hospital continued. " steady, regular communication "with Marshall about her needs and which ultimately allowed her to choose her own desk furniture.
The court also found no evidence of Marshall's hostile work environment. claims were nothing more than" small office dynamics "that were not serious enough or pervasive for a tt rise to the level of a hostile work claim.