Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00965/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00965-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILFREDO A. GOLEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 09cv0965 AJB (WMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AS TO THE REMAINING 

FMLA CLAIM 

[Doc. No. 106.]

Plaintiff Wilfredo A. Golez, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a fourth amended

complaint against Defendant John E. Potter, the United States Postmaster General, alleging violations of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29

U.S.C. § 794a; and the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601. On October 17, 2011,

the Court granted Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment as to the Title VII and rehabilitation claims and as to the FMLA claim regarding any events prior to May 5, 2006. (Dkt. No. 113.) 

Before the Court is Defendant’s second motion for partial summary judgment filed on July 25, 2011

regarding the remaining FMLA claim. (Dkt. No. 106.) The motion is submitted on the papers without

oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). After a review of the briefs, supporting

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 1 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s

second motion for partial summary as to the FMLA claim regarding any incidents after May 5, 2006.

Procedural Background

On May 5, 2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant Potter. (Dkt. No. 1.) On

September 14, 2009, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 15.) On December 8, 2009,

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 22.) Before the motion to

dismiss was fully briefed, on February 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second

amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 30.) On February 24, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for

leave to file a second amended complaint and denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot. (Dkt. No.

34.) On February 24, 2010, a second amended complaint was filed. (Dkt. No. 35.) On March 5, 2010,

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave of court to file an addendum to the second amended complaint. (Dkt.

No. 37.) On March 12, 2010, the Court construed that motion as a motion for leave to file a third

amended complaint which was granted. (Dkt. No. 38.) A third amended complaint was filed on March

29, 2010. (Dkt. No. 39.) On April 9, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 42.) On

April 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave of court to file a fourth amended complaint. (Dkt. No.

44.) On April 23, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiff’s request for leave to file a fourth amended complaint

and set a briefing schedule on the motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 45.) On July 12, 2010, the Court

granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion to strike and granted in part and denied in part

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 56.) On August 6, 2010,

Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 57.) An answer was filed on August 18, 2010. 

(Dkt. No. 59.) On August 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order which was

denied on August 23, 2010. (Dkt. No. 62.) 

On February 10, 2011, Defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment, or alternatively,

motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 81.) On February 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave of court to

amend the fourth amended complaint which was denied on February 28, 2011. (Dkt. Nos. 86, 87.) On

March 14, 2011, the case was transferred to the undersigned judge. (Dkt. No. 89.) Plaintiff filed an

opposition on March 18, 2011 and Defendant filed a reply on March 29, 2011. (Dkt. Nos. 92, 93.) On

October 17, 2011, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment as to the Title

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 2 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

VII and rehabilitation claims and as to the FMLA claims regarding any events prior to May 5, 2006. 

(Dkt. No. 113.) 

On July 25, 2011, Defendant filed a second motion for partial summary judgment as to the

remaining FMLA claims regarding any events after May 5, 2006. On December 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed

an opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 131.) Defendant filed a reply on

January 9, 2012. (Dkt. No. 132.) 

Factual Background

Plaintiff was employed as a custodian with the United States Postal Service from February 16,

1998 to July 4, 2008 when his employment was terminated. (Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 6.) 

Plaintiff’s disciplinary issues started in November 2004. (Id. ¶ 10.) 

According to the fourth amended complaint, Defendant suspended Plaintiff for seven days from

April 30 to May 6, 2005 for irregular attendance at work. (Id. ¶ 17.) On July 28, 2005, Plaintiff was

suspended for fourteen days for irregular attendance. (Id. ¶ 19.) On February 2, 2006, Defendant

reduced his suspension to a “paper suspension with no loss of pay” through a pre-arbitration settlement. 

(Id. ¶ 21.) 

In November 2005, after discussing his attendance issues with his supervisor, he was told that

“[i]t was business and if Plaintiff could not be there, Plaintiff might as well not be there.” (Id. ¶ 9.) 

On May 9, 2006, Plaintiff received a notice of proposed removal. (Id. ¶ 24.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff

submitted a letter of rebuttal to the “EEO and APWU.” (Id. ¶ 25.) Around June 15, 2006, Defendant

rescinded the proposed letter of removal. (Id. ¶ 26.) 

On October 10, 2006, Plaintiff returned to work and received an investigative interview dated

October 9, 2006 for not reporting an on-the-job injury. (Id. ¶ 29.) On November 28, 2006, Defendant

conducted an investigative interview regarding Plaintiff’s continuing unauthorized absences. (Id. ¶ 33.) 

On November 29, 2006, Plaintiff received a Proposed Removal from employment for his unauthorized

absences. (Id. ¶ 34.) On December 4, 2006, Plaintiff submitted a rebuttal to the proposal. (Id. ¶ 35.) 

On December 28, 2006, Defendant reduced the discipline to a fourteen-day suspension, which was to

remain on his record for eighteen months, until June 2008. (Id. ¶ 37.) 

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 3 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The pages in Plaintiff’s NOL cited by the Court are based on the CM/ECF pagination. 

4 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

In April and May 2008, Plaintiff was late six times. (Id. ¶ 40.) Plaintiff claims he called the

supervisor’s cell phone to inform him of the delay but the calls were ignored. (Id.) On May 11, 2008,

Plaintiff received an emergency call about his mother’s health and looked for the supervisor in his office

to inform him but he was not there. (Id. ¶ 42, 43.) Plaintiff clocked out to lunch when he left. (Id. ¶

44.)

On June 2, 2008, Plaintiff received a Notice of Proposed Removal for “Failure to Follow

Instructions” to notify his workplace of his absences. (D’s Notice of Lodgment (“NOL”), Ex. 3.) On

June 11, 2008, Plaintiff delivered his attorney’s letter to Defendant. (P’s NOL, Ex. 5 at pgs. 41-421

.) 

On June 20, 2008, Plaintiff rejected a proposal by Defendant of a “Last Chance Employment Agreement” provided that Plaintiff withdraw all claims filed. (FAC ¶¶ 54, 55.) On July 3, 2008, Plaintiff was

issued a Notice of Decision of Termination by Defendant. (D’s NOL, Ex. 4.) On July 4, 2008, Plaintiff

was escorted out of the Facility. (FAC ¶ 58.) 

I. Legal Standard pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 empowers the Court to enter summary judgment on factually

unsupported claims or defenses, and thereby “secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of

every action.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 327 (1986). Summary judgment is

appropriate if the “pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together

with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A fact is material when it affects

the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any genuine issues of

material fact. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. The moving party can satisfy this burden by demonstrating that the nonmoving party failed to make a showing sufficient to establish an element of his or her

claim on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 322-23. If the moving party fails

to bear the initial burden, summary judgment must be denied and the court need not consider the

nonmoving party’s evidence. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60 (1970). 

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 4 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

Once the moving party has satisfied this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on the mere

allegations or denials of his pleading, but must “go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or

by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file’ designate ‘specific facts showing

that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. If the non-moving party fails to make

a sufficient showing of an element of its case, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Id. at 325. “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the

nonmoving party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). In making this determination, the court must “view[] the evidence in

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Fontana v. Haskin, 262 F.3d 871, 876 (9th Cir. 2001). 

The Court does not engage in credibility determinations, weighing of evidence, or drawing of legitimate

inferences from the facts; these functions are for the trier of fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. 

“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however in

artfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). 

However, a pro se litigant must comply with procedural rules. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th

Cir. 1987). In addition, a nomoving party’s failure to comply with the rules does not excuse the moving

party’s duty to demonstrate its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Martinez v. Stanford, 323

F.3d 1178, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). A moving party under Rule 56 must affirmatively show that there are

no genuine issues as to any material fact and they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at

1183. 

The Ninth Circuit has observed that “[a]t the summary judgment stage, we do not focus on the

admissibility of the evidence’s form. We instead focus on the admissibility of its contents.” Fraser v.

Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) (evidence which could be made admissible at trial may be

considered on summary judgment). The nonmoving party need not produce evidence “in a form that

would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment.” F.D.I.C. v. N.H. Ins. Co., 953 F.2d

478, 485 (9th Cir. 1991) (because Defendant failed to object to the admission of documents, the court

considered the documents in a Rule 56 motion despite the fact that the evidence was presented in a form

that would not be admissible at trial) (quotation omitted). 

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 5 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

Defendant incorrectly asserts that the complaint was filed on May 9, 2009. However, the

complaint was filed on May 5, 2009. (Dkt. No. 1.) 

6 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

A. Statute of Limitations

In the previous motion for summary judgment which was filed prior to the conclusion of

discovery, Defendant liberally construed the statute of limitations and argued that any events occurring

before May 5, 20062 must be time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations which requires a

showing of a willful violation. In the instant motion, Defendant argues that after having conducted

discovery, Plaintiff lacks any evidence that the challenged decisions were willful violations under the

FMLA. Therefore, the two year statute of limitations applies and any events alleging FMLA violations

prior to May 5, 2007 must be barred. The incidents include the following:

1) October 9, 2006 investigative interview (FAC ¶¶ 11, 69, 77); 

2) November 28, 2006 investigative interview (id., ¶¶ 33, 69, 75). 

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that there was a willful violation of the FMLA and the continuing

violations doctrine should apply. Specifically, he contends his supervisor’s comment in 2005 that “[i]t

was business and if Plaintiff could not be there, Plaintiff might as well [n]ot be there” (FAC ¶¶ 9, 69,

70) reveals his employer’s motive and reason for Plaintiff’s subsequent FMLA discrimination, false

accusation, harassment and eventual termination. (Opp. at 1-2.)

Title I of the FMLA authorizes some federal employees, including USPS employees, to file

district court actions for violations of the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(2). The statute provides “an

action may be brought under this section not later then 2 years after the date of the last event constituting the alleged violation for which the action is brought . . . . In the case of such action brought for a

willful violation . . . such action may be brought within 3 years of the date of the last event constituting

the alleged violation for which such action is brought. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c)(1) & (2).

The FMLA and the United States Supreme Court has not expressly defined “willful” under the

FMLA. See 29 U.S.C. § 2617; Samuels v. Kan. City Mo. Sch. Dist., 437 F.3d 797, 803 (8th Cir. 2006). 

Other circuits have looked to the United States Supreme Court’s definition of “willful” in the context of

the Fair Labor Standards Act [(“FLSA”)] as defined in McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe Co., 486 U.S. 128,

133 (1988). Samuels, 437 F.3d at 803; Porter v. N.Y.U. School of Law, 392 F.3d 530, 531 (2d Cir.

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 6 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

2004); Hillstrom v. Best Western TLC Hotel, 354 F.3d 27, 33-34 (1st Cir. 2003); see also Ricco v.

Potter, 377 F.3d 599, 602-03 (6th Cir. 2004); Clemens v. Avis Rent a Car System, LLC, No.11CV43,

2001 WL5239212, at *2 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 1, 2011); Batson v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 08-6204-AA,

2010 WL 1924676, at *2 (D. Or. May 11, 2010). 

The United States Supreme Court held that an employer acts “willfully” when he or she “either

knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of which its conduct was prohibited by the statute.” 

McLaughlin, 486 U.S. at 133. If “an employer acts reasonably in determining its legal obligation, its

action cannot be deemed willful . . . . If any employer acts unreasonably, but not recklessly, in

determining its legal obligation, then . . . it should not be . . . considered [willful.]” Id. at 135 n. 13. 

 In his opposition, Plaintiff merely argues that Defendant acted willfully; however, he has not

submitted any evidence to support such an allegation. Plaintiff has failed to provide any facts or

designate any specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of material fact that Defendant “either

knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter” at issue. See McLaughlin, 486 U.S. at 133. 

Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated a willful violation by Defendant and

the two- year statute of limitations applies and any claims prior to May 5, 2007 must be time-barred. 

In addition, it appears that Plaintiff is arguing that the continuing violations doctrine applies and

his supervisor’s comment in 2005 that “[i]t was business and if Plaintiff could not be there, Plaintiff

might as well [n]ot be there,” (FAC ¶¶ 9, 69, 70) reveals his employer’s motive to discriminate and

harass him to eventual termination. 

The continuing violations doctrine allows a court to consider events that would otherwise be

time-barred if the untimely events are part of an ongoing unlawful employment practice. Draper v.

Coeur Rochester, Inc., 147 F.3d 1104, 1107 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Shepard v. City of Portland, – F.

Supp. 2d –, 2011 WL 5282607 (D. Or. 2011) (applying continuing violation doctrine to claim under the

FMLA). To establish a continuing violation, a plaintiff must show that the untimely incidents were part

of a continuing pattern of discrimination, which continued into the relevant limitations period. Sosa v.

Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451, 1455 (9th Cir. 1990).

 As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence about the facts surrounding

the statement. Plaintiff has not provided an affidavit or declaration indicating that this statement was

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 7 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

made, who made the statement and the facts surrounding the statement. He merely presents arguments

in his opposition. Second, one comment made in 2005 is too remote in time and does not establish “a

continuing pattern of discrimination, which continued into the relevant limitations period.” See Sosa,

920 F.2d at 1455. Accordingly, the continuing violations doctrine does not apply in this case. 

In sum, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has not shown that the alleged acts by Defendant were

willful and that the continuing violations doctrine applies. Therefore, under the two-year statute of

limitations, any alleged events prior to May 5, 2007 are time-barred. 

B. Family Medical Leave Act

The events relevant to the instant motion for summary judgment under the FMLA include the

following: 

1) Decision to make Plaintiff AWOL, rather than give him FMLA leave for May 11, 2008.

(FAC ¶ 77.); and 

2) July 3, 2008 removal from employment. (Id. ¶¶ 57, 69, 71-72, 82, 99.) 

“The FMLA provides job security and leave entitlements for employees who need to take

absences from work . . . to care for family members with serious illnesses.” Xin Liu v. Amway Corp.,

347 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 2612.) The FMLA grants up to twelve weeks of

leave per year to eligible employees in various circumstances, including in order to care for a parent

with a serious health condition. 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(C); 29 C.F.R. § 825.113; 29 C.F.R. §

825.201(a). The FMLA created two interrelated substantive employee rights: “first, the employee has a

right to use a certain amount of leave for protected reasons, and second, the employee has a right to

return to his or her job or an equivalent job after using protected leave. 29 U.S.C. §§ 2612(a), 2614(a).” 

Bachelder v. America West Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112, 1122 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Courts have recognized two theories of recovery on FMLA claims under 29 U.S.C. § 2615. 

Bachelder, 259 F.3d at 1124; Xin Liu, 347 F.3d at 1136. First, it is unlawful for an employer “to

interfere with, restrain or deny the exercise of . . . any right” provided under the FMLA. 29 U.S.C. §

2615(a)(1) (known as an “interference claim”). Second, it is “unlawful for any employer to discharge or

in any manner discriminate against any individual for opposing any practice made unlawful by” the

FMLA. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2) (known as a “retaliation claim”). 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2) does not cover

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 8 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The Ninth Circuit has declined to apply the burden shifting framework recognized in

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1972) to FMLA “interference” claims. Bachelder, 259 F.3d at 1125; Xin Liu, 347 F.3d at 1136 (“While other circuits have applied the McDonnell Douglas

framework to FMLA termination [interference] cases, this Circuit . . .explicitly declined to apply this

framework [to interference claims].”).

4

Congress authorized DOL to issue implementing regulations for the FMLA. See 29 U.S.C. §

2654. “These regulations are entitled to deference under Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources

Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843–44 (1984).” Xin Liu, 347 F.3d at 1133 (citing Bachelder, 259

F.3d at 1123 n. 9).

9 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

negative consequences on an employee because he has utilized FMLA leave. Bachelder, 259 F.3d at

1124. 

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “retaliated against him for engaging in protected

activities, namely taking Family Medical Leave Act leave.” (FAC ¶ 69.) While Plaintiff phrases his

claim as one of retaliation, essentially he is asserting he suffered an adverse employment action for

taking FMLA leave also known as an “interference claim” under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1). 

In order to prevail on a claim, a plaintiff “need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence

that her taking of FMLA-protected leave constituted a negative factor in the decision to terminate her.”

Bachelder, 259 F.3d at 1125.3 A plaintiff may prove this claim through either direct or circumstantial

evidence, or both. Id.

Congress authorized the Department of Labor to issue implementing regulations for the FMLA.4 

Under the regulations, “interference” includes “not only refusing to authorize FMLA leave, but

discouraging an employee from using such leave.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(b). In addition “employers

cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring

promotions or disciplinary actions . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c)

1. Decision to Make Plaintiff AWOL, Rather Than Give Him FMLA Leave for May

11, 2008

Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to comply with Defendant’s usual notice and procedural

requirements for notifying his employer of an unexpected absence. Specifically, Defendant claims that

on May 11, 2008, Plaintiff left the premises during his duty period without getting management’s

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 9 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

approval and was charged with 3.39 hours of Absence Without Official Leave (“AWOL”). In

opposition, Plaintiff claims that he followed the notice requirements and called his supervisor’s

telephone number as soon as practicable considering the facts and circumstances. 

The regulations provide that when “a need for leave is not foreseeable, an employee must

comply with the employer’s usual and customary notice and procedural requirements for requesting

leave, absent unusual circumstances. For example, an employer may require employees to call a

designated number or a specific individual to request leave.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.303(c). The regulations

further state that if “an employee does not comply with the employer’s usual notice and procedural

requirements, and no unusual circumstances justify the failure to comply, FMLA-protected leave may be

delayed or denied.” Id. In addition, when the 

need for leave is not foreseeable, an employee must provide notice to the employer as

soon as practicable under the facts and circumstances of the particular case. It generally

should be practicable for the employee to provide notice of leave that is unforeseeable

within the time prescribed by the employer’s usual and customary notice requirements

applicable to such leave.

29 C.F.R. § 825.303(a). Notice to the employer may be given by an adult family member if the

employee is unable to call in personally. Id.

The Employee and Labor Relations Manual (“ELM”) and the Standard Operating Procedure

(“SOP”) of the United States Postal Service in the San Diego District provide guidelines as to the duties

and obligations of employees seeking FMLA leave and procedures to report an unexpected absence. 

(O’Connor Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6; D’s NOL, Exs. 19, 20, 21; Pl’s NOL, Ex. 4.) Both documents state that

“[e]mployees are required to be regular in attendance.” (D’s NOL, Ex. 19 § 665.41; Ex. 20, ¶ II.1.a.) If

an employee seeks to report an unexpected absence, an employee must call the Interactive Voice

Response System (“IVR”). (Id., Ex. 20 ¶¶ II.1.c.; II.3.a.) In addition, employees who are going to be

late to work must call the IVR and state the duration of their tardiness and explain the reason for their

lateness to their supervisor. (Id., Ex. 20 ¶ II.3.c.) The IVR system is a centralized toll-free number for

employees to call to report an absence which operates every day, twenty-four hours a day. (O’Connor

Decl. ¶ 3.) ELM requires employees to “keep his or her supervisor informed of intentions to return to

work and of status changes that could affect his or her ability to return to work.” (D’s NOL, Ex. 21 §

515.51.) 

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 10 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

An employee who does not report for duty on scheduled days are considered absent without

leave (“AWOL”). (D’s NOL, Ex. 19 § 665.42; Ex. 20 ¶ II.1.b.) In an emergency, the supervisor “must

be notified of the inability to report as soon as possible. Satisfactory evidence of the emergency must be

furnished later.” (Id.) If satisfactory evidence is not provided, the employee will be placed in a nonpay

status. (Id.) 

Courts have held that an employee may be terminated for violating Defendant’s notice requirements. Buckman v. MCI World Com, Inc., 374 Fed. Appx. 719, 720 (9th Cir. 2010) (employee

conceded that he called in forty-eight minutes after his shift began and failed to offer any evidence that

he was unable to call in before his shift and employee had received 11 previous warning for violating

this policy and had been on final warning); Brown v. Automotive Components Holding, LLC, 622 F.3d

685, 687 (7th Cir. 2010) (granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment when employee failed to

give employer notice of need to extend her leave and considered AWOL after failing to give proper

FMLA notice); Gilliam v. U.P.S., 233 F.3d 969, 971-72 (7th Cir. 2000).

Richard Drennen was employed as Supervisor Maintenance Operations in 2007 and was

Plaintiff’s first-level supervisor until July 4, 2008. (Drennen Decl. ¶¶ 1, 2.) In April and May 2008,

Plaintiff was scheduled to work on Mondays, Tuesdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays from 3:00 p.m.

for eight hours. (Id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff was authorized to take a thirty-minute lunch break and two fifteenminute breaks each workday. (Id.) In 2008, Drennen had a cellular telephone and a land-line in his

office and those numbers were written on the white board for the employees at stand-up meetings. (Id. ¶

6.) Prior to April 2008, Drennen informed his employees to call the IVR system if they were going to

be late or absent and then to call him if they needed to talk to him. (Id.) He always answered the phone

or let the phones take a message; however, he never refused or disconnected a call from Plaintiff. (Id.) 

Prior to April 2008, Drennen informed Plaintiff about five times that he was required to call the IVR

system if he was going to be late or call Drennen in advance. (Id. ¶ 5.)

On May 11, 2008, at 7:49 p.m., Plaintiff received an emergency phone call from his sister that

his mother was having difficulty breathing and her oxygen saturation level was very low. (D’s NOL,

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 11 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

It is not disputed that the cellular telephone records are from the cellular telephone used by

Plaintiff during this time. 

6

 On the phone records, Mr. Drennen’s number is 619-571-7824. (Opp. at 3.)

12 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

Ex. 11, P’s Depo. at 164:18-20.)5 He looked for his supervisor in his office to inform him but he was

not there. (Id. at 164:18-165:8; 165:18-166:10.) He clocked out to lunch and left right away. (Id.) He

stated that he made no attempt to telephone Mr. Drennen before he left and while he was driving home. 

(Id. at 165:9-16.) Once his mother was stabilized, he left to return to work and on the way to work, he

was stopped by the police. (Id. at 175:22-176:18.) While he was stopped, Plaintiff telephoned Mr.

Drennen at 10:48 p.m.6 to inform him of his absence. (Id.) Plaintiff did not ask his sister to call his

supervisor for him. (Id. at 176:5-12.) On May 11, 2008, Plaintiff submitted a Request for or Notification of Absence, Form 3971 (“PS 3971"). (P’s NOL, Ex 3 at 35.) Mr. Drennen, his supervisor,

disapproved the request and wrote “[d]id not notify supv. of absence.” (Id.) 

Plaintiff does not dispute these facts except he makes the following assertions. First, Plaintiff

states he was not able to call Mr. Drennen while driving to his sister’s house because he was on the

phone with her as he drove to her house as she was reading their mother’s oxygen levels. (D’s NOL,

Ex. 11, P’s Depo. at 165:11-16.) Therefore, the first opportunity he had to call his supervisor was when

he was stopped by the police on his way to return to work at 10:48 p.m. (Opp. at 8.) He claims that he

followed instructions and called his supervisor and submitted the appropriate PS 3971 form “as soon as

practicable considering the particular facts and circumstances.” (Id.) He also claims that he clocked out

to lunch to minimize his absence based on the verbal agreement with his previous supervisor Mike

Boisvert. (Opp. at 8, 12.) 

The facts presented demonstrate that Plaintiff failed to follow the customary and usual procedure

in notifying his employer of an unexpected absence. Plaintiff left unexpectedly during work around

7:49 p.m. for 3.39 hours without informing his employer until three hours later. Plaintiff stated that

when he first received the emergency phone call, he went to his supervisor’s office to inform him but he

was not there. He claims that he could not call his supervisor when he drove to his sister’s house

because he was on the phone with her the whole time monitoring his mother’s oxygen level. However,

the phone records do not support his statement. The telephone records show that his sister called him at

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 12 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

7:49 p.m. for one minute and then another one minute phone call was made at 7:52 p.m. (P’s NOL, Ex.

2.) He testified that it took 20 to 25 minutes to drive from his sister’s house to work. (D’s NOL, Ex. 22,

P’s Depo. at 89:21-24.) Therefore, the records do not support Plaintiff’s argument that he spent the

entire drive on the telephone with his sister. Plaintiff had the opportunity to call the IVR system or his

supervisor on the drive to his sister’s house. He could have also asked his sister to call in for him. 

However, he waited until he was stopped by a police officer at 10:48 p.m., three hours after he left work. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate there is a genuine issue of 

disputed fact that he did not violate his employer’s customary and usual requirement to notify Defendant

“as soon as possible” and to“keep his or her supervisor informed of intentions to return to work and

status changes that could affect ability to return to work.” (D’s NOL, Ex 19 § 665.42; Ex. 21 § 515.51.) 

In addition, he states that he had a verbal agreement with his previous supervisor Mike Boisvert

that he could use his lunch break to reduce the amount of FMLA leave he took because his leave was

leave without pay. (D’s NOL, Ex. 11, P’s Depo at 99:4-18.) He claims that Boisvert told him that as

long as the break was less than 30 minutes he could clock in and out without any problems. (FAC ¶ 51.) 

Also, Plaintiff contends it was common place for him to leave in the middle of work and lose pay

whenever an FMLA call was received and that he would either let his supervisor know or leave a PS

3971 form in his office or fill it upon his return. (Opp. at 6.) He states that he talked with Mr. Drennen

about the arrangement with Boisvert, and although Drennen never approved it, he also never disapproved it. (D’s NOL, Ex. 22, P’s Depo. at 107:4-6, 11-13.) However, Plaintiff has not provided any

facts to support this oral agreement. In fact, the documents show that on November 29, 2006, Plaintiff

was issued a Notice of Proposed Removal for Failure to be Regular in Attendance and AWOL from

Michael Boisvert, his supervisor. (D’s NOL, Ex. 14.) Plaintiff has failed to show a genuine issue of

material fact that he had a verbal agreement with his previous supervisor Boisvert that he could take

extended lunch breaks to reduce his FMLA hours and to leave work for FMLA purposes and inform his

supervisor after his return. 

In conclusion, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to Defendant’s

decision to reject Plaintiff’s request for FMLA leave on May 11, 2008 for failing to follow the usual and

customary notice and procedural requirements to notify his employer of an unexpected absence. See

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 13 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

The telephone records do not indicate the year the calls were made. The parties do not dispute

that the telephone records are from the year 2008. 

8

No telephone records were submitted for these dates. (D’s NOL, Ex. 11, P’s Depo. at 121:11-

14.)

14 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for partial

summary judgment as to the decision to reject Plaintiff’s request for FMLA and give Plaintiff AWOL

status on May 11, 2008. 

2. July 3, 2008 Removal From Employment

Defendant argues that Plaintiff was late to work eleven times in April and May 2008 and he

failed to comply with the requirement to call the IVR system. Therefore, Plaintiff was charged with

“Failure to Follow Instructions” and removed from employment in a decision dated July 3, 2008. 

Plaintiff argues that he complied with the notice requirement as the telephone records7 show that he

contacted his supervisor on the dates that he was going to be more than a few minutes late. 

When an employee is going to be absent from work or late, he is required to contact management

and obtain permission in advance or to contact the IVR system in advance unless an emergency prevents

the employee from doing so. (Drennen Decl. ¶ 5.) Mr. Drennen states that prior to April 2008, he

reminded Plaintiff about five times that if he was going to be late, he needed to call the IVR system in

advance, or call me in advance. (Id.) Mr. Drennen informed Plaintiff to either call the IVR system or to

call him in advance. (Id. ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff was late for work on April 12 and April 13, 2008 and failed to notify management or

call the IVR system. (Id. ¶ 7.) On April 13, 2008, Drennen met with Plaintiff to discuss his tardiness

and failure to contact the USPS and reminded him of his obligation to be in regular attendance and

emphasized the use of the IVR system. (Id. ¶ 8.) After the April 13 discussion, Plaintiff was late nine

more times in April and May 2008; April 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29 and May 2 and 5, 2008. (Id. ¶ 9.) 

He failed to either notify management or call the IVR system of his tardiness. (Id. ¶ 9.) 

According to the Notice of Proposed Removal dated June 2, 2008, Plaintiff was charged with

Failing to Follow Instructions on twelve different occasions. (D’s NOL, Ex. 3.) At his deposition,

Plaintiff testified that he did not telephone his tardiness on April 12, 13, or 18th.8 (D’s NOL, Ex. 11, P’s

Depo. at 120:23 - 121:1; 121:17- 122:11.) On April 12, 2008, he was late .09 hours or 5.4 minutes. (Id.,

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 14 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

Ex. 3.) On April 13, 2008, he was late .10 hours or 6 minutes. (Id.) On April 18, 2008, he was late .08

hours or 4.8 minutes. (Id.) Plaintiff does not recall the details of these dates but explains that he

probably did not call in because he was already on the premises since he was only five or six minutes

late. (Id., Ex. 11, P’s Depo. at 121:22-122:3.) 

On April 19, 2008, Plaintiff was late .40 hours or 24 minutes. (Id., Ex. 3.) According to

Plaintiff’s cellular telephone records, on April 19, 2008, he called Mr. Drennen telephone number at 

3:04 p.m. (Id., Ex. 18.) 

On April 22, 2008, Plaintiff was late .88 hours or 53.8 minutes late. (Id., Ex. 3.) The telephone

records show that on April 22, 2008, Plaintiff called Mr. Drennen at 2:57 p.m. (Id., Ex. 11, P’s Depo. at

148:1-3.) He does not recall if Mr. Drennen answered or not but in the end he said he must have been

ignored by Mr. Drennen on that call. (Id. at 149:1-150:17.) 

On April 25, 2008, Plaintiff was late .45 hours or 27 minutes. (D’s NOL, Ex. 3.) According to

the phone records, Plaintiff called Drennen at 3:03 p.m., 3:04 p.m. and again at 3:44 p.m. (D’s NOL,

Ex. 18; P’s Depo. at 152:6-20.) However, Plaintiff does not recall what happened on these three phone

calls. (P’s Depo. at 152:15-23.)

On April 26, 2008, Plaintiff was late .11 hours or 6.6 minutes. (Id., Ex. 3.) Plaintiff states that

he did not think he would be late on that day so he did not call. (Id., Ex. 11, P’s Depo. at 154:7-20.) He

said he called Drennen later at 8:51 p.m. because he was late coming back from his lunch break. (Id. at

154:21-24; 155:4.) 

On April 28, 2008, Plaintiff was late .10 hours or 6 minutes. (Id., Ex. 3.) The telephone records

show no record of any phone calls. (Id., Ex. 18.) Plaintiff testified that since he was only late six

minutes, he did not call. (Id., Ex. 11, P’s Depo. at 155:21-25.) 

On April 29, 2008, Plaintiff was late .15 hours or 9 minutes. (Id., Ex. 3.) The telephone records

show that Plaintiff made a call to Drennen at 2:50 p.m. (Id., Ex. 18.) Plaintiff stated that he did not get

through to Drennen on the telephone and got disconnected. (Id., Ex. 11, P’s Depo. at 157:17-25;158:1-

3.) 

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 15 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

On May 2, 2008, Plaintiff was late .11 hours or 6.6 minutes. (Id., Ex. 3.) Plaintiff stated that no

call was made on that date because he must have been on his way or on the premises and thought he

would make it. (Id., Ex. 11, P’s Depo. at 158:17-21; 158:23-159:5.) 

On May 5, 2008, Plaintiff was late .23 hours or 13.8 minutes. (Id., Ex. 3.) On that day, the

phone records show that Plaintiff tried to call Mr. Drennen at 2:52 p.m. but was unable to get through. 

(Id., Ex. 18; P’s Depo. at 159:19-21; 161:7-10.) He did not make any other attempts to call his work. 

(Id., Ex. 11, P’s Depo. at 161:11-15.) 

On May 11, 2008, Plaintiff left the premises during his scheduled duty period and without

getting management’s approval and charged with 3.39 hours of absence without official leave. 

(Drennen Decl. ¶ 10.) Drennen investigated the circumstances of the tardiness and AWOL and on May

16, 2008, Drennen conducted an investigative interview of Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 11.) Drennen concluded that

Plaintiff was “well aware of his requirement to maintain regular attendance, to contact management of

his inability to work, and to receive approval from his supervisor prior to leaving the building, and the

consequences of failing to do so.” (Id.) Drennen also learned that Plaintiff’s previous supervisors had

issued a Notice of Proposed Suspension in 2006 for failing to regularly attend to his job; however, the

removal was reduced to a 14-day suspension. (Id. ¶ 12; D’s NOL, Ex. 15.) The Grievance Decision

was to remain in Plaintiff’s file until June 28, 2008. (Drennen Decl. ¶ 12.) 

Based on the investigation, on June 2, 2008, Drennen issued a Notice of Proposed Removal for

tardiness and AWOL in April and May 2008. (Drennen Decl. ¶ 13; D’s NOL, Ex. 3.) The Notice of

Proposed Removal charged Plaintiff with Failure to Follow Instructions. (D’s NOL, Ex. 3.) Drennen

states that his decision to remove Plaintiff had nothing to do with Plaintiff taking or seeking FMLA

leave and the removal was based on the reasons stated in the Notice of Proposed Removal. (Drennen

Decl. ¶ 14; D’s NOL, Ex. 3.) On July 3, 2008, a Letter of Decision was issued which upheld the Notice

of Proposed Removal dated June 2, 2008. (D’s NOL, Ex. 4.) The decision was upheld for failing to

provide a reasonable explanation for his continued failure to follow the instructions of his supervisor;

failure to provide a reasonable explanation as to why he was unable to contact IVRs to report his

absences; and failure to provide a reasonable explanation for his failure to follow the instructions of his

supervisor to report to them that he was leaving prior to his assigned end tour. (Id. at 2.) 

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 16 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

The Court notes that Defendant’s documents themselves raise a genuine issue of material fact as

to whether Defendant terminated Plaintiff in violation of the FMLA. 

17 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

In opposition, Plaintiff does not dispute the facts of the case but argues that he followed

Defendant’s procedure for being late or absent by telephoning Drennen; however, he claims that

Drennen ignored his phone calls. Plaintiff testified that Drennen picked up the first two calls Plaintiff

made and ignored the rest. (D’s NOL, Ex. 11, P’s Depo. at 149:21-25; 176:21-25.) Moreover, on the

days that he was only a few minutes late, he states that he was probably on the work premises and did

not think he would be late. In addition, Plaintiff explained that he would only call the IVR system when

he would not be able to come to work. (Id. at 71:15-20; Opp at 11.) He believed that it was not

necessary to call the IVR system if he was going to be five minutes late because the IVR system was

time consuming and would make him more late and pushing numbrs into his telephone while driving

would be dangerous. (Opp. at 11; D’s NOL, Ex. 11, P’s Depo at 70:16-71:11.) If he was going to be

late, he would call the supervisor. (D’s NOL, Ex. 11, P’s Depo. at 72:8-15.) 

Although Defendant generally argues that Plaintiff has not produced any admissible evidence, it

has not specifically objected to the documents filed in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment. In addition, although the documents submitted by Defendant are not admissible at this stage,

the documents could be made admissible at trial. See Fraser, 342 F.3d at 1036. Therefore, the Court

considers the documents filed in support of Defendant’s opposition.9

 

The documents filed by Plaintiff and Defendant raise suspicion as to whether Defendant

terminated Plaintiff in violation of the FMLA. According to Drennen, he informed Plaintiff to either

call the IVR system or to call him in advance if he was going to be late. (Drennen Decl. ¶ 5). Instead of

calling the IVR system to inform his supervisor he would be late, Plaintiff called his supervisor. (D’s

NOL, Ex. 18.) The Proposed Notice of Removal and telephone records reveal that for all the times

Plaintiff was between five to six minutes late, no telephone call was made to Drennen. (D’s NOL, Exs.

3, 18.) Plaintiff testified that he did not call because he was probably on the premises and thought he

would make it on time. (D’s NOL, Ex. 11, P’s Depo. at 121:22-122:3; 154:7-20; 155:21-25; 158:17-

21.) He also stated that it took him five minutes to walk to his car from his job. (Id. at 102:16-18.) For

tardiness greater than six minutes, the phone records show that Plaintiff called Drennen’s telephone

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 17 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

number. (D’s NOL, Exs. 3, 18.) Drennen states that he always either answered the phone or let the

phones take messages. (Drennen Decl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff opposes stating that besides three times, he was

never able to talk to Drennen on the phone because his calls were ignored. (FAC ¶ 40; Opp. at 11.) 

Whether Plaintiff got through on the telephone to Drennen, the telephone records show that Plaintiff

attempted to contact his supervisor when he was more than just a few minutes late. There is a genuine

issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff attempted to comply with usual and customary procedure by

calling his supervisor if he was going to be late. 

Plaintiff argues his PS 3971 forms were submitted and approved on a daily basis. (Opp. at 4-5;

12.) However, he claims that his supervisor asked Plaintiff to sign PS 3971s for April 12, 13, 18, 19,

and 25; however, as indicated on the documents, he refused to sign the documents. (Id.; Ex. 9 at pgs.

55-61.) He claims that his supervisor was trying to replace these “disapproved” forms with the

approved forms to support his termination although he has not submitted any of these approved

documents except one. (Opp. at 5.) On these PS 3971s, the date of disapproval by his supervisor was

May 30, 2008, three days prior to the Notice of Proposed Removal. In addition, the PS 3971 forms are

forms submitted by the employee to the employer for approval. It is not clear why Drennen asked

Plaintiff to sign his PS 3971 requests. Moreover, the PS 3971 form dated May 5, 2008 for tardiness for

.23 minutes from 3:00 p.m. to 3:14 p.m. was approved. (Id., Ex. 10 at 61.) However, this tardiness was

listed as an unscheduled late on the Notice of Proposed Removal dated June 2, 2008. (D;’s NOL, Ex.

3.) 

Therefore, in liberally construing the documents submitted by Plaintiff, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff has created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his continued taking of FMLAprotected leave constituted a negative factor in its decision to terminate him on July 3, 2008. See

Bachelder, 259 F.3d at 1125. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for summary

judgment as to whether its decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment was a violation of the FMLA. 

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant’s motion for

partial summary judgment as to the FMLA claim regarding any incidents that occurred after May 5,

2006. Specifically, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment as to any

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 18 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19 09cv0965-AJB(WMC)

alleged events prior to May 5, 2007 as untimely. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for partial

summary judgment as to the decision to label Plaintiff AWOL, rather than give FMLA for his absence

on May 11, 2008. The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment as to whether

the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment on July 3, 2008 was a violation of the FMLA. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 31, 2012

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-00965-AJB-WMC Document 133 Filed 02/03/12 Page 19 of 19