Case Background
Debra Rena Graciani, a registered nurse with specialized training in dialysis, began working at Providence Health & Services in Anchorage, Alaska, on February 17, 2014. Graciani identified as African American. She worked as a nurse in Providence's dialysis unit and reported to a series of supervisors, including Kelli Rinas, James Efird, Brenda Franz and James Blankenship. Providence terminated her employment on November 1, 2016, following a dispute over patient handoff procedures. Graciani alleged that a grievance and arbitration process later found her termination violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement and resulted in her reinstatement; Defendants did not concede this characterization in their answer and stated that the arbitration opinion speaks for itself. Graciani further alleged that Providence placed her in the Intensive Care Unit at reduced pay and without her prior benefits following reinstatement; Defendants admitted only that she currently works as a fellow in the ICU and denied the remaining allegations. Graciani filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on June 20, 2016, and received a right-to-sue letter on December 28, 2017. She filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska on March 23, 2018.
Cause
Graciani alleged that Providence and her individual supervisors discriminated against her because of her race and retaliated against her for opposing what she believed was unlawful treatment. She claimed Efird and other managers gave scheduling preference to Caucasian nurses, subjected her to a series of vague and unsupported disciplinary actions, and ultimately fired her for a handoff communication issue that other nurses of different races allegedly committed without consequence.
Injury
Graciani alleged she suffered damage to her nursing career, lost wages, and physical, mental and emotional harm from the pattern of discipline, unequal scheduling, and termination she described. She also alleged that after her reinstatement, Providence continued to injure her by refusing to return her to the dialysis unit, withholding her prior benefits, and treating her as a new hire on a 90-day probationary period at lower pay in the ICU. Defendants denied these allegations in their answer.
Damages Sought
Graciani requested an injunction against further discrimination and retaliation, equitable relief including expungement of her negative employment record and reinstatement to the dialysis unit, economic damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Debra Rena Graciani (currently proceeding pro se, per the docket)
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Nicholas J. Kittleson represented Graciani through the proceedings reflected in these documents; the docket indicates his representation was terminated on September 11, 2025
Defendant: Providence Health & Services, Kelli Rinas, James Efird, Brenda Franz and James Blankenship
· Counsel for Defendant: Gregory S. Fisher | Brooke Hammond | Samuel August Richman | Tanja L. Darrow | Evan E. Kroll | Renea I. Saade of Littler Mendelson also represented Defendants at the time the answer was filed in 2019; the docket indicates her representation was terminated on March 3, 2023.
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Graciani brought six claims. She alleged disparate treatment in hiring, promotion, compensation and other terms of employment under Title VII, pointing to a pattern of unsupported discipline, biased scheduling that favored Caucasian nurses, and a termination for conduct that other nurse of different races allegedly engaged in without consequence. She also alleged disparate treatment through segregation, arguing Providence failed to reinstate or hire African American employees in the dialysis unit after her termination. Her retaliation claims under Title VII asserted that the same pattern of discipline and unequal scheduling followed her complaints about discrimination. She further alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §1981, claiming Providence and the individual Defendants deprived her of equal rights on account of her race and her protected activity. Under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3), she alleged the individual Defendants conspired together to deprive her of equal protection and privileges under the law. Her complaint also sought punitive damages, alleging the Defendants acted maliciously or with conscious disregard for her rights.
Graciani's complaint detailed specific incidents supporting these claims. She alleged that Efird once told co-workers he moved because he no longer wanted to live around Black people; Defendants denied this allegation. She described being sent home more often than Caucasian co-workers in violation of the union contract, and being denied a full-time position until the union intervened; Defendants denied these characterizations as well. She also described a co-worker, Dawn Bennett, who allegedly called her a derogatory name and later referenced the incident during a holiday exchange; Defendants denied that Bennett engaged in any abusive conduct toward Graciani. She further alleged that a colleague, Mario Saturnino, touched her inappropriately; Defendants did not dispute that Graciani raised this concern and that Providence investigated it, and stated Providence issued a workplace-wide memo afterward stating that hugging without permission was not acceptable, but Defendants did not admit that Saturnino went undisciplined. Graciani said she raised her concerns repeatedly with Human Resources and her union representative, and alleged that a Human Resources partner refused to accept her written rebuttal to a disciplinary letter unless she removed her discrimination allegations. She also alleged that after she completed self-instruction training materials tied to a disciplinary action, someone discarded them in the trash; Defendants denied this. Her termination in November 2016 followed a dispute over patient handoff procedures; she alleged three other nurses of different races used similar handoff practices without being fired, naming Kathy Cummerang, David Stacey and Karyl Dyan Dyer, and alleged that Cummerang and Stacey received non-disciplinary letters of counseling after her own termination. Graciani alleged that a subsequent grievance and arbitration process found her termination violated the union contract and resulted in her reinstatement; Defendants stated that the arbitration opinion and award, issued October 17, 2017, speaks for itself and denied the remaining characterizations, including Graciani's claim that she was treated as a new hire with reduced pay and benefits after reinstatement.
Defense
Providence and the individual Defendants denied that race motivated any employment action taken against Graciani. In their answer, they disputed many of the complaint's factual narratives, frequently stating that underlying documents and communications "speak for themselves" rather than adopting Graciani's characterizations of them. They denied that Efird made the comment about not wanting to live around Black people, denied that Bennett engaged in abusive conduct toward Graciani, and stated that Graciani's allegations regarding Saturnino were investigated and that Providence issued a workplace-wide memo on unwelcome physical contact, without admitting that Saturnino went undisciplined. They maintained that Graciani's discipline stemmed from legitimate, non-discriminatory concerns about her communication and interactions with coworkers and patients, not her race. The Defendants also raised numerous affirmative defenses, including that Graciani failed to exhaust her administrative and union remedies, that the individual Defendants were not properly named in her EEOC charge and were therefore outside the Court's jurisdiction as to some claims, that her claims were barred in whole or part by the statute of limitations, that her arbitration outcome already addressed her termination claim and she did not seek judicial review of it, and that she failed to mitigate her damages. They further argued that any adverse action taken would have occurred regardless of her race or protected activity, based on legitimate business reasons tied to patient care.
Jury Verdict
A jury verdict form dated May 22, 2025 in this matter is captioned against Providence Health & Services, Kelli Rinas and Brenda Franz; the documents provided do not explain why James Efird and James Blankenship do not appear in this caption. The jury found that Graciani had not proved her racial discrimination claim under federal law against Providence, answering "No" to Question 1. The jury also found that Graciani had not proved her claim that Rinas prevented her from enjoying a benefit, privilege, term or condition of her employment contract because of her race under Claim 3, answering "No" to Question 7. Because the jury answered "No" on these liability questions, it was not required to answer the corresponding damages questions, and the damages fields on Questions 5, 6, 11 and 12 of the verdict form were left blank in the pages provided. The presiding juror signed and dated the verdict form on May 22, 2025.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
