Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02724/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02724-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2724

___________

Barry Pugh, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

*

James Copeland, *

* Appeal from the United States

Plaintiff, * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

L. A. Darling Company, *

*

Defendant - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 14, 2004

Filed: May 11, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After his employment was terminated for excess absenteeism, Barry Pugh filed

suit against his former employer, the L.A. Darling Company, under the Family and

Medical Leave Act (FMLA). See 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601–2654 (2000). The District

Appellate Case: 03-2724 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2004 Entry ID: 1765823 
1

The Honorable Garnett Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Court1

 granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and dismissed the case.

Pugh appeals the grant of summary judgment and urges that the District Court erred

when it determined that he failed to establish a FMLA claim and when it determined

that he failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. We review the grant of

summary judgment de novo. See Gen. Trading Int'l, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,

320 F.3d 831, 835 (8th Cir. 2003). We agree that the record at summary judgment

does not support Pugh's contention that certain of his absences were covered by his

prior FMLA requests, that he was penalized for these covered absences, and that he

provided the company with sufficient notice of his anxiety disorder so as to invoke

the FMLA. We also agree that Pugh has failed to make out a prima facie case of

retaliation insofar as he cannot establish a causal connection between his previous

invocation of the FMLA and his eventual termination. Accordingly, we affirm based

on the well-reasoned opinion of the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2724 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2004 Entry ID: 1765823