The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Edward J. Lodge U. S. District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants' Idaho Emergency Physicians, P.A. ("IEP") and David Kim's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 25) against Plaintiff Julie Madsen. The Court grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, this Court finds that Plaintiff's federal claims are time-barred and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims.
Plaintiff Julie Madsen is a medical doctor, board-certified in emergency medicine, and licensed to practice in Idaho. Plaintiff began work for Defendant IEP in February 2002 as an emergency department physician. At the same time, Plaintiff continued her employment as the medical director for Canyon County Paramedics and Northwest Paramedics. IEP is a group of emergency medicine physicians that contract with Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center to provide emergency department services. Defendant David Kim is also a physician for and shareholder of IEP. In March 2003, Plaintiff became a shareholder in IEP and signed a shareholder agreement. Among other things, IEP shareholders are required to work full-time and to pay for certain benefits if they do not meet the full-time hourly requirements.
In January 2004, Plaintiff became pregnant with twins. Plaintiff stopped working in July 2004 because of pregnancy complications. Plaintiff was on maternity leave from September 2004, when her children were born, through December 31, 2004. Plaintiff returned to work for IEP on January 1, 2005. After returning to work for IEP, Plaintiff did not meet her full-time hourly requirements. Plaintiff was suffering from then-undiagnosed post-partum depression. As a result of Plaintiff's failure to meet hourly requirements, IEP required Plaintiff to pay for some of the benefits that IEP had provided when Plaintiff did not work full-time.
In late 2005, Plaintiff requested part-time employment, which IEP denied. Plaintiff requested a leave of absence in December 2005. Plaintiff's leave of absence began on January 1, 2006 and ended on July 1, 2006. The IEP scheduling process occurs in six-month intervals, the next of which did not start until October 2006. Given IEP's schedule, Plaintiff could not be assured of a full-time schedule until October 2006. On July 14, 2006, Plaintiff resigned as an IEP shareholder but not as an IEP employee. Plaintiff never returned to work for IEP.
Plaintiff argues that IEP engaged in unlawful employment practices by discriminating against Plaintiff because of her gender and disability, and by retaliating against Plaintiff when Plaintiff voiced her concerns and sought help for her disability. Specifically, Plaintiff argues that IEP did not permit her to return to work after her leave of absence, that IEP did not give her "shift relief" for hours worked outside IEP that IEP had given to other male physicians, that IEP required her to pay for benefits during her 2004 medical leave of absence, and that IEP disseminated information about her leave of absence outside IEP.
Plaintiff filed a charge with both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and the Idaho Human Rights Commission ("IHRC") on January 22, 2007. Am. Compl., ¶ 5 (Docket No. 2).
Plaintiff raises the following claims against Defendants:
(1) Against Defendant IEP, Plaintiff alleges gender discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Idaho Human Rights Act ("IIHRA"). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges both disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims. Compl. ¶¶ 28--33.
(2) Against Defendant IEP, Plaintiff alleges retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) and IHRA, Idaho Code § 67-5911. Compl. ¶¶ 34--42.
(3) Against both Defendants IEP and Kim, Plaintiff alleges intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress because of Defendants' alleged violations described in claims (1) and (2). Compl. ¶¶ 42--49.
(4) Against both Defendants IEP and Kim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Kim maliciously spread rumors about Plaintiff, including that Plaintiff was faking her post-partum depression. Compl. ¶¶ 50--57.
(5) Against Defendant IEP, Plaintiff alleges wrongful discharge because Defendant IEP constructively terminated Plaintiff because of her gender and in ...