Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01455/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01455-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 751
Nature of Suit: Labor - Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1455

___________________________

Regina D. Coates

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Southwest Airlines Company

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock

____________

 Submitted: November 12, 2015

Filed: January 7, 2016

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Regina D. Coates appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary 1

judgment in her action under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Upon de

novo review, see Burciaga v. Ravago Americas, LLC, 791 F.3d 930, 934 (8th Cir.

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.

Appellate Case: 15-1455 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Entry ID: 4353436 
2015), we agree with the district court that there were no jury issues on Coates’s

FMLA discrimination claim, see Hudson v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 787 F.3d 861,

866 (8th Cir. 2015) (discrimination claim arises when employer takes adverse action

against employee for exercising rights to which she is entitled under FMLA; where

employer bases its adverse decision on honestly-held belief unrelated to FMLA, it is

not discriminatory even if belief is mistaken); or on her FMLA entitlement claim, as

she was granted such leave, see Quinn v. St. Louis County, 653 F.3d 745, 753 (8th

Cir. 2011) (for interference (also known as entitlement) claim, employers are

prohibited from interfering with, restraining, or denying employee’s exercise or

attempted exercise of any right contained in FMLA; while interference includes

discouraging employee from using such leave, employee must also show that

employer denied employee entitlements under FMLA). The judgment of the district

court is affirmed. 

______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1455 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2016 Entry ID: 4353436