2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-23-2009 

# E rdm an v . Nat ion wide Ins C o
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3796

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" E r dm an v . Nat ion wide In s C o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 535. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/535P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 3796

BR E NDA L

. E RD M AN, A p p e llan t,

v. NAT I ONWI DE I NS UR ANC E CO M P ANY,

A ppel l ee.

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N o. 05- cv- 00944) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC

. C onner

A r gued N ovember17, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , FU E N T E S and H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges

. ( Fi l ed: Sept ember23, 2009 )2 Pat r i ci a C

. Z ucker[A r gued] D al eyZ uckerM ei l t on M i ner& G i ngr i ch 1035 M um m a R oad Sui t e 101 W or m l ey s bur g, PA 17043- 0000 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ant D onal d R

. K el l er[A r gued] V lad im ir P . B e lo B r i cker& E ckl er 100 Sout h T hi r d St r eet C ol um bus , O H 43215- 0000 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge

. B ren d a E rdm an ch all en g es th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s su m m ary j udgm ent i n favor of her form er empl oy er, N at i onw i de I ns ur ance C om pany . T he pr i nci pal i s s ue on appe al — w hether E r dm an ac cumul at ed s uffi ci enthour s t o qual i fyfor l eave under t he Fami l yand M edi cal L eave A ct ( FM L A )

— r ai s es ques t i ons o f f irst im p re ss io n in th is C o u rt.3 I

. O u r re v ie w o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j ud gm ent i s pl enary , view i ng t h e f a c ts i n the l i gh tm ost f a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rty . S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is appr opri ate o n lyi f ther e ar e no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac t s u c h t h a tt h e mo v a n ti s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. See McT ernan v. C i t

y of Y ork , 5 6 4 F

. 3 d 6 3 6 , 6 4 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). A

. N at i onw i de h ir ed E r dm an i n 1980 and s he hel d var i ous f u l l

- t i me p o s i t i o n s u n t i l 1 9 9 8 , wh e n s h e a s k e d t o wo r k p a r t
- t i me so sh e c o u ld c a re f

o r h e r d a u g h ter A m b e r , w h o w a s b o rn w ith D ow n Syndr om e. N at i onw i de gr ant ed thi s r eques t, as w el l as E rdm an ’s req u est fo u r y ea rs l ater to sw it ch to a f o u r-da yw o rk w eek, w hi ch r ender ed Erdman a non- exempt em p loy ee unde r fede r al l aw . A ccor di ng t o Pat t y Sarno, E r dm an’ s s upervi s orat t he t i m e, E r dm an w as a r el i abl e empl oy ee w ho r egul ar l yw or ked e x tra h o u rs o u tsid e th e o f f ice . In d e e d , S a rn o c o n sis ten tly authori zed p aym ent for these ho urs oral l ow ed E rd m a n to use t hem as “ comp” t i m e. I n ear l y 2002, s oon aft erE r dm an s w i t ched t o a four

- day w o rk w ee k , S arn o inf

o rm ed h er tha t sh e sh o u ld “p u t i n the h o u rs th a t . . . yo u ’r e s u p p o s e d to p u t in a n d n o th in g m o re th a n th a t.” I n Sept ember2002 , E rdm an e- m ai l ed St el l a G et gen, w ho had r epl ace d Sar no as E rdm an’ s s upervi s ors om e fi ve mont hs e a rlier , to r e q u e st cla rif ica tio n w h e th e r sh e w a s s til l allo w e d to w or k extr a hour s forus e as “comp” t i m e. T her e i s no r ecor d of any r es p o n s e b yGet g e n , who , d e s p i t e th i s e - ma i l , c l a i ms th at4 s he fi r s thear d t he phr as e “c om p” t i m e i n a J anuary2003 m ee ti n g w ith E rdm an reg ard ing a discrep an cy in E rd m an ’s acc rued vac at i on t i m e. A ft erE r dm an expl ai ned tha ts he had us ed “c om p” t i m e, G et gen conc ede d t hatE r dm an’ s vaca t i on t i m e cal culat i on w as corr ect , and m ade no obj ect i on t o her use of “c om p” t i m e. A w eek l a t e r , o n J a n u a r y2 8 , 2 0 0 3 , Get g e n e - ma i l ed E rdm an to a d m o n ish h er f o r th ree rea so n s: ( 1 ) E rdm an ’s over t i m e w as unappr oved; ( 2) E r dm an fai l ed t o cons ul tG et gen b e f o re v isitin g a p o licy h o ld e r’s re sid e n c e ; an d (3 ) e m p lo y e e s in E r dm an’ s pos i t i on w er e notauthor i zed t o conductfi el dw or k. G et gen conc l uded: “A s m uch as w e ar e t empt ed t o do a

‘ s i m pl e’ fi el d i nve s t i g at i on, ther e ar e l egal and l ogi s t i cal r eas ons that p roh ibitu s fro m d o ing so . ” T w o w ee k s lat er, o n F eb rua ry 10, 200 3 , Get g e n f

o rth e f i r s tt i me a d v i s e d Er d ma n th a ts he coul d no l ongerus e extr a hour s for“comp” t i m e. S o o n af ter G etge n ad m o n ishe d h er, N at i onw i de i nform ed E r dm an thatherpar t
- t i m e pos i t i on w oul d be el i m i nat ed, buts he c o u l d wo r k f

u l l

- t i me i ns t e a d

. Er d ma n a c c e p t e d t h e f u l l

- t i me pos i t i on, butN at i onw i de cl ai m s t hat E r dm an became angryand e r r a t i c b e c a u s e s h e wa s u n h a p p ywi t h h e rr e tu r n t o f u l l

- t i me s t atus . O ver t he nexts ever al w eeks , N at i onw i de cont ends that E r dm an i nappr opr i at ely ques t i oned otherempl oy ees about co n fid en ti al salary in f o rm ati o n , en co u rag ed o thers to w o rk s l ow l yt o avoi d dr i vi ng up pr oduct i o n s t a n d a r d s , m ade mal i ci ous acc us at i ons agai ns t G et gen, and com m i t t ed var i ous otheract s of i nsub ordi nati on . E rdm an d i sputes these cl ai m s.5 A tt he t i m e Erdman acc ept ed t he ful l

- t i m e pos i t i on, s he s oughtcl ar i fi cat i on thatN at i o n w ide w oul d honorher p rev iou sly -ap p rov ed req u est fo r v a ca ti o n d u ri n g the e n ti re m o n th o f A u g u st, w h ich E rdm an h ad typ icall ytake n to p rep are A m berfors chool

. N at i onw i de i nform ed Erdman that i tw as un l i kely sh e w ou l d b e al l ow ed to t ake v acat i on i n A ug ust beca us e of t he pr es s i ng need forful l

- t i m e empl oy ees i n l i ghtof t he unus ual l yl ar ge numberof empl oy ee s r eques t i ng vaca t i on t hat m o n t h. E rdm an an no un ced thati f she co uld not use v a c a t i o n t i me i n Aug u s t , s h e wou l d r e q u e s tFM LA l e ave in s te a d

. O n A pr i l 14, 2003, E r dm an bega n w or ki ng ful l

- t i m e and a w eek l at ers he s ubm i t t ed pape r w or k r eques t i ng FM L A l eave from J ul y7 t o A ugus t29. A hum an r es our ces empl oy ee r es ponded t o this req ues tbyt el l i ng E r dm an that“as faras t he F M L A , I p ro b a b ly d o n ’t s e e a n yp ro b le m s w ith th is .” N at i onw ide fi r ed Erdman on M ay9, 2003, ci t i ng her p u rp o r t e d b e h a v i o r a l p r o b l e m s w h i c h c u l m i n a t e d o n M a y 8 w hen Erdman us ed pr ofani t ydur i ng a phone c onvers at i on t hat was mon i t o r e d f

o rq u a l i t yc o n t r o l p u rp o s e s . Comp a n yp o l i cy s t a t e s t h a tp e r s o n a l c a l l s a r e n o tmon i t o r e d , a n d Er d man prefaced a personal cal l w i t h a p rof ane d i scl ai m er: “T his i s a personal cal l and shou l d n ot be r eview ed fo r qual i t ypu rpo ses, a s s h o le s .” B. A ll eg ing that N ati o n w ide’s stated m o ti v es w ere p r e t e x tu a l a n d t h a ts h e was a c tu a l l y f i r e d f o rr e q u e s t i n g FM LAE rd m a n a lso b ro u g h t cla im s u n d e r th e P e n n s y lv a n ia 1 H um an R el at i ons A ct ( PH R A ) and forbr eac h of contr act
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm entt o N at i onw i de on the br eac h of contr act cl ai m and dec l i ned t o exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on overt he PH R A cl ai m . N ei t herof thes e cl ai m s i s at iss u e o n a p p e a l. 6 l eave , E r dm an br ought fede r al cl ai m s underthe FM L A and the A m er i cans W i t h D i s abi l i t i es A ct ( A D A )

. I ni t i al l y , the D i s t r i ct 1 C our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enton the FM L A cl ai m , fi ndi ng t hatE r dm an coul d notes t abl i s h a cau se o f act i on — ei t herfor i nt er fer ence orr et al i at i on — beca us e s he had notacc um ul at ed t he 1, 250 hour s nece s s ary to qual i fyas an el i gi bl e empl oy ee u n d er the statu te. T h e D is tr ictC o u rtalso g ran ted s u m m ary j udgm enton t he A D A cl ai m , butonl yt o t he ex tent tha ti tw as bas ed on a f

ai l ur e t o acc om m odat e theory . N at i onw i de w as deni ed s um m aryj udgm enton E r dm an’ s A D A “as s oci at i o n” c l a i m. N at i onw i de fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on. A ft er br i efi ng and or al ar gum ent , t he D i s t r i ct C our t r ever s ed i t s el f and g ra n ted N a tio n w id e su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e A D A c laim in its ent i r ety , concl udi ng thatthe A D A ’ s “as s oci at i on” pr ovi s i on pr ohi bi t s onl yempl oym entdeci s i ons bas ed on “unfounded ste re o typ e s a n d a s s u m p tio n s a g a in st e m p lo y e e s w h o a ss o c iate w i t h di s abl ed peopl e. ” Er dman v . Nat i o n wi d e I n s . C o. , N o. 1 : 0 5

- CV- 0 9 4 4 , 2 0 0 7 U. S

. Di s t
. L E XI S 6 1 6 1 1 a t* 9

- 1 0 ( M

. D. Pa. A ug. 22, 2007) ( quot i ng D en H ar t og v. W

as at ch Acad. , 909 F. Supp. 1393, 1400 ( D

. U t ah 1995) )

. Fi n d ing that N at i onw i de’ s act i on s w ere m ot i vat ed byE r dm an’ s pr i or7 m odi fi cat i ons t o herw or k s chedul e i ns t ead o f s t er eotypes or u n f o u n d e d a ss u m p tio n s, th e D istric t C o u rt h e ld E rd m a n c o u ld n o te s t a b l i s h a n ADA “ a s s o c i a t i o n ” c l a i m. E r dm an fi l ed thi s t i m el yappea l , ar gui ng t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our terr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enton the FM L A and ADA c l a i ms . W e h a v e j u r i s di c t i on p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1291. III

. A n empl oy ee i s el i gi bl e forFM L A l eave if sh e has w or ked “a tl eas t1, 250 hours o f servi ce w i t h [her ] empl oy er d u ri n g the p rev iou s 1 2 m o n th p eriod

. ” 29 U

. S

. C

. § 2 6 1 1 (2)(A ). A c c o rd in g to E rd m a n ’s r e c o rd s, sh e w o rk e d 1 ,2 9 8 .2 5 h o u rs in th e re lev a n t p e rio d , inc lu d in g 1 1 8 .5 h o u rs f ro m h o m e . In its cal cul at i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our texcl u ded 57 hour s w or ked fr om hom e pr i ort o E r dm an’ s Sept ember2002 e- m ai l t o G et gen as ki ng w hethers he w as al l ow ed t o w or k extr a hours for us e as “c o m p ” ti m e, an d 2 0 h o u rs w o rke d f rom h o m e a fter G etge n ’s J anu ary 2 003 e- m ai l t o E r dm an admoni s hi ng herfordoi ng fi el dw or k. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound t hatN at i onw i de coul d not have ha d cons t ruct i ve not i ce of anyhour s E r dm an w or ked fr om hom e pr i or t o t he Sept ember2002 e- m ai l beca us e Erdman had p rev iou slyb ee n told to “ p u t in the h o u rs th at .
. . y o u ’re s uppos ed t o puti n and nothi ng m o re t han that

. ” The D i s t r i ct C ou rt also found thatcons t ruct i ve not i ce w as di s pel l ed byt he J anuary2003 e- m ai l

. C ons equent l y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcount ed o n ly4 1 .5 0 o f

th e 1 1 8 .5 0 h o u rs E rd m a n w o rk e d f ro m h o m e in cal cul at i ng t he t ot al num berof hour s s he w or ked i n the pr evi ous8 y e a r, w h ich lef

t E rd m a n 2 8 .7 5 h o u rs s h o rt o f F M L A ’s th re sh o ld re q u ire m e n t. A. T he fi r s t ques t i on i s w hether a r eas onabl e j ury coul d have concl uded thatN at i onw i de had actual or cons t ruct i ve not i ce that E r dm an w or ked atl eas t 1, 250 hour s , m aki ng herel i gi bl e under t he FM L A

. ForFM L A purpos es , al l w or k that“the em p loy er k n o w s o r h a s re a so n to b e liev e . . . is b e in g p e rf o rm e d ” c o u n ts t ow ar d the threshol d r equi r ement
. 29 C

. F. R

. § 785. 12. T he par t i es agr ee thathour s w or ked off

- s i t e or b ey o nd an empl oy ee’ s r egul ar s chedul e count i f “[the empl oy er ] know s or h as re aso n to b eli ev e tha t a n e m p lo y ee is co n ti n u ing to w o rk extr a hour s . ” 29 C

. F. R

. § 785. 11. “[A ] n empl o y er ne ed not have a ctual know l edge of s uch off

-si t e w or k; cons t ruct i ve know l edge w i l l s uffi ce. ” H ol z apf el v. Tow n of

N ew bur gh , 145 F

. 3 d 5 1 6 , 5 2 4 (2d C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ). N a tio n w id e d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t E r d m a n re g u lar ly w or ked out s i de of the off i ce f orm anyy ear s , and t hatSarno cons i s t ent l yauthor i zed pa ym en t f o rthes e hour s oral l ow ed E r dm an t o us e them as “com p” t i m e. N evert hel es s , N at i onw i de ci t es t hr ee r easo ns w hyi thad no ac tual orcons t ruct i ve know l edge thatE r dm an cont i nued t o do s o dur i ng the r el evant t i m e per i od. Fi r s t , Sarno t es t i fi ed thatw hen Erdman’ s pos i t i on c h a n g e d f

ro m e x e m p t to n o n -e x e m p t s tatu s in 2 0 0 2 , sh e to ld E rd m a n to “ p u t in th e h o u rs th a t . . . y o u ’re su p p o se d to p u t in and nothi ng m or e than that

. ” S ec o n d, Sar no w as the onl yone w i t h per s onal k n o wl e d g e th a tE r dm an w or ked out s i de the off i ce, a n d S a rn o w a s re p lac e d b y G e tg e n in 2 0 0 2 . F in a lly , G e tg e n to ld9 E rdm an in Ja n u ary2 0 0 3 th a t sh e w as “ n o t auth o ri ze d to w o rk o u ts id e [ h e r] s ta n d a rd w o rk h o u rs .” D esp it e the su p erf

ici al ap p ea l of

N ati o n w ide’s ar gum ent s , t hey fai l t o per s uade be caus e theydo notacc ountfor E r dm an’ s us e of “ comp” t i m e. T o be s ur e, N at i onw i de w as on recor d t hat E rdm an cou l d no t be paid for anyadd i t i on al ho urs. B utt hi s begs t he ques t i on w hethers he coul d cont i nue — as s he had done for s o m any y ear s i n t he pas t

— t o w ork o u tsi d e the offi ce to a ccrue “c om p” t i m e. A ft erE r dm an bec ame a nonexemptempl oy ee i n 2002, Sarno expr es s ed conc ern aboutt he n u m b e r o f

h o u r s th a t E rd m a n “ p u t in .” T h is c o u ld re a so n a b ly be i nt erpr et ed t o m ean thatE r dm an w as pr ohi bi t ed fr om “put t i ng i n” any h o u rs fo r N ati o n w ide o u tsi d e o f th e of fice

. O r, i tcoul d r eas onabl ybe i nt erpr et ed t o m ean t hatE r dm an w oul d no lon g er b e p aid f

o r m o re h o u rs th an sh e w as s c h ed u led to w o rk on a w eekl y bas i s . A l l ow i ng E r dm an t o “puti n” extr a hour s for l at erus e i n l i eu of vaca t i on w oul d be ent i r el y cons i s t ent w i t h a d e s i r e t o e l i m i n a t e o v e r t i m e p a y, o rt o e n s u r e s a l a ry u n i f o r m i t y. “C om p” ti m e d i d notal l ow E r dm an t o earn over t i m e payor in c re a se h e r n e t sa lar y; it m e re lya llo w e d h e r to a c c u m u late h o u rs w h ile w o rk in g a t h o m e . A b se n t an yc lea r in d ica tio n to t he contr aryfr om N at i onw i de, a r eas onabl e j ury coul d concl ude th a t th e p u rp o se o f

S a rn o ’s c o m m u n ica tio n w a s to p ro h ib it E r dm an fr om bei ng pai d for m or e hour s t han s he w as s chedul ed to w o r k e a c h w e e k , w ith o u t re g a rd to w h e th e r E rd m a n c o u ld cont i nue t o acc rue “c om p” t i m e. G e tg e n ’s Ja n u a ry 2 0 0 3 e -m a il t o E rd m a n ill u stra tes th is p o in t. R e a d in its e n tirety , the m e ss a g e h a s n o th in g to d o w ith E r dm an w or ki ng fr om hom e oracc um ul ati n g “comp” t i m e.10 G et gen enume rat ed thr ee s peci fi c conc erns : unappr oved over t i m e pay ; unappr o v ed vi s i t s t o pr i vat e r es i dence s ; and empl oy ees i n E r dm an’ s pos i t i on conduct i ng fi el dw or k. T hi s em ai l does notpr ecl ude a r eas onabl e j uryfr om fi ndi ng t hat Nat i o n wi d e h a d a c tu a l o r c o n s t ru c t i v e k n o wl e d g e o f E r dm an w or ki ng fr om hom e t o acc rue “c om p” t i m e. T her e i s no m ent i on of “c om p” t i m e anyw her e in the e- m ai l , and the m es s age maybe i nt erpr et ed as ent i rel ycons i s t entw i t h t he company ’s cont i nued ac qui es cenc e t o E r dm an’ s acc rual of “comp” t i m e. E r dm an’ s Sept ember2002 e- m ai l t o G et gen ca s t s fur t her doubton N at i onw i de’ s cl aim t hatt he companypr ohi bi t ed E r dm an fr om acc rui ng and us i ng “co m p ” ti m e. T her ei n, E r dm an sp eci fi cal l yas ked about“comp” t i m e i n l i ghtof ambi guous comm uni cat i ons r egar di ng herhour s . N at i onw i de neverr es ponded t o thi s poi nt ed i nqui r y , w hi ch r ai s es an i nfer ence adver s e t o N at i onw i de’ s pos i t i on. A s i m i l arnegat i ve i nfer ence m ay be dr aw n fr om t he J anuary 2003 m eet i ng betw een E rd m a n a n d G e tg e n , in w h ich E rd m a n c laim s th a t G e tg e n tac itl y acqui es ced t o her cont i nued acc rual and us e of “c o m p ” t i m e. E r dm an’ s ver s i on of w hat t r ans pi r ed at t hi s m eet i ng coul d l ead a r eas onab le jur yt o concl ude thatN at i onw i de had a ctual or cons t ruct i ve know l edge of E r dm an’ s cont i nued us e of “ comp” t i m e. N at i onw i de corr ectl ynot es thatE r dm an’ s s ubj ect i ve bel i efs a b o utcompanypol i cyar e i r r el evant
. T he i s s ue i s not w h a t E rd m a n th o u g h t, bu t w h a t N a tio n w id e c o m m u n ica ted to her , and w hethert he co m pany“ac qui es ced i n [] the off

- t hecl ock w or k. ” The r ecor d i s equi vocal on thi s poi nt , how ever .11 A re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld f in d th a t N a tio n w id e in ten d e d to cat egor i cal l ypr ohi bi tal l w or k out s i de of the of fi ce, i n w hi ch cas e N ati o nw i de coul d notbe cha r ged w i t h cons t ruct i ve know l edge thatE r dm an cont i nued t o w ork out s i de the offic e. See D avis v. Food Li on , 792 F. 2d 1274, 1277 ( 4th C i r . 1986) ( hol di ng t hatempl oy erdi d not have cons t ruct i ve know l edge of “s ecr et ” off- t he- cl ock hour s w or ked af t err epea t ed i ns t ruct i ons no tt o d o s o )

. Nev e r t h e l e s s , a r e a s o n a b l e j u r yc o u l d a l s o fi nd t h a tNat i o n wi d e i n t e n d e d t o p r e c l u d e Er d ma n f r o m e a r n i ng over t i m e, w hi l e al l ow i ng hert o cont i nue t o acc rue “c om p” t i m e. N o r do es th e f

ac t th at G etge n rep lace d S arn o as Erdman ’s s upervi s orcarr yt he dayforN at i onw i de. Fi r s t , t he J anuary2003 m eet i ng coul d s how that G et gen had pe r s onal know l edge of E r dm an’ s “comp” t i m e pr act i ces aft er t hatpoi nt
. Second, as p rev iou sly d iscu ssed , G etge n ’s stat ed co n ce rns ab o u t E rdm an ’s h o u rs a r e s u s c e p tib le to a n in terp re tatio n th a t is e n tirely cons i s t entw i t h t h e appr oval of “c om p” t i m e. Fi nal l y , even t hough G et gen m ay have l acke d per s onal know l edge of E r dm an’ s pr evi ous us e of “ comp” t i m e underSarno, thathas no b e a rin g o n th e k n o w led g e im p u ted to N a tio n w id e . It is un dis pu ted th atS arno al l ow ed E rdm an to accrue and use
“ c o m p ” tim e f

o r m a n yy e a rs. It is e q u a llyc lea r th a t in e a rly 2002, N at i onw i d e p roh ibit ed E rdm an fro m w o rkin g overt i m e for pay . W hatr emai ns uncl ear , w hen w e cons i derthe r ecor d i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o E r dm an, i s w hetherN at i onw i de r equi r ed her t o cea s e and des i s t herl ongs t andi ng pr act i ce of acc rui ng and us i ng “comp” t i m e. Fi n a l l y , we mus t a d d r e s s a p o l i c y c o n c e r n r ai s ed by N at i onw i de. E r dm an ar g u es thatherabove- aver age12 pr od u cti v it y , co u p le d w i t h t he company ’ s aggr es s i ve per form ance goal s , evi dence N at i on w i de’ s cons t ruct i ve know l edge of

herextr a hour s . N at i onw i de obj ect s thatdr aw i ng s uch an i nfer ence w oul d effect i vel yi m put e cons t ruct i ve knowl e d g e o f

u n d o c u me n t e d h o u r s whe n e v e ra n e mpl o y er “es t abl i s hed aggr es s i ve produc t i vi t y s t andar ds orencount er ed a p a rt ic u la rl yg o o d e m p lo y e e .” I ti s conce i vabl e thats t el l arpr oduct i vi t ym aybe p rob ati v e o f a n em p loy er’s co n stru cti v e k n o w ledg e o f e x tr a w o rk h o u rs in r a r e c a se s, b u t in th is c a se th e a rg u m e n t is forecl osed b yE rdm an’s r el i ance o n “co m p” ti m e. B ecause everyhourof “com p” t i m e i s eff ect i vel y excha nged foran hour o f p aid v ac ati o n at s o m e p o int in the fu ture, E rdm an co u ld w o rk no m or e than hers chedul ed hours i n the l ong run. T her efor e, E rdm an’ s pr oduct i vi tycann o t r ef lect co n stru cti v e n o ti ce o f e x tr a h o u rs o n N a tio n w id e ’s p a rt. I n s um , w hen r ead i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o E r dm an, t he r ecor d i ndi cat es thata r eas onabl e j urycoul d concl ude that N at i onw i de had c ons t ruct i ve not i ce of hour s thatE r dm an w or k e d f

r o m ho me u n t i l Fe b ru a r y1 0 , 2 0 0 3 , whe n Er dm an conce des t hatG et gen fi nal l yaddr es s ed the i s s ue and pr ohi bi t ed herfr om acc rui ng and usi ng “comp” t i m e. C ount i ng al l of the h o u rs th at E rdm an w o rke d at ho m e p ri o r to that d ate, th e re co rd i ndi cat es t hatE r dm an ac cumul ated 1, 282. 25 t ot al hour s i n the y ea r befor e herr eques t ed l eave w as s chedul ed t o begi n. T her efor e, E r dm an w as el i gi bl e for FM L A l eave forpurpos es of su m m a ryju d g m e n t.13 B. H avi ng det erm i ned t hatE r dm an i s an el i gi bl e empl oy ee f o rp u rp o s e s o f

s u mm a r yj u d g me n t , we s h a l l a d d r e s s t wo al t ern ati v e ar gum ent s beca us e theyw i l l aff ectt he D i s t r i ct C o u r t ’ s i n s t ru c t i o n s t o th e j u r y. 1. Can Er dman Cl ai m “Remedi al El igi bi l i t

y ”? E r d ma n a r g u e s th a t2 9 C. F. R. § 8 2 5

. 1 1 0 ( d ) r e n d e r s her el i gi bl e forFM L A l eave

r egar dl es s of how m any hour s s he w or ked bec aus e N at i onw i de fai l ed t o not i fyherof h er el i gi bi l i t y . T he ver s i on of § 825. 110( d) i n eff

ect att he t i m e of Er dm an’ s di s m i s s al s t at ed: “[i ] f t h e e mpl o y e rf

a i l s t o a d v i s e t h e e mpl o y e e whe t h e rt he e m p lo y e e is e lig ib le p rio r to th e d a te th e re q u e ste d lea v e is to c o m m e n c e , th e e m p lo y e e w ill b e d e e m e d e lig ib le .” I n s pi t e of t he pl ai n l anguage of § 825. 110( d) , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt re jec ted E rd m a n ’s a rg u m e n t, c iti n g d e c isio n s f ro m c o u rts of appe al s t hathave i nval i dat ed t he r egul at i on as expandi ng F M L A e lig ib ility b e y o n d th e s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e . S e e , e .g ., B r ungar t v. B el lSouth Tel ecom m s . , I nc . , 2 3 1 F

. 3 d 7 9 1 (11 th C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ); D or m eye rv. C om m er i ca Bank , 2 2 3 F

. 3 d 5 7 9 (7 th C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). E rdm an cit es n o au tho ri tyto s u p p o rt a c o n tr ary c o n c lu sio n , b u t sh e u rg e s u s to d isa g re e w ith o u r sis ter c irc u its and uphol d t he r egul at i on. W e f in d p e rsu a siv e th e S e v e n th C irc u it’s a n a ly sis o f th is ques t i on i n D or m eye r :14 A l t hough t he D epart m entof Laborhas , l i ke other admi ni s t r at i ve age nci es , the author i t yt o i s s ue regul at i o ns t o carryou tthe d uti es that C on gress has as sign ed to i ti n [the FM L A ] , i thas no author i t y t o change t he A ct
. B utthati s w hatthe r egul at i on t r i es t o do. It does notaddr es s an i nt erpr et i ve i s s ue thatthe s t atut e l eave s open, and s o t he pr i nci pl e of the C hevr on c a s e i s n o ti n p l a y. T he s t atut or y t exti s per fec t l ycl earand cove r s t he iss u e . T h e rig h t o f f

a m ily lea v e is c o n f

e rre d o n ly on empl oy ees w ho have w or ked atl eas t1, 250 hour s i n t he pr evi ous 12 m onths

. Y et u n d er the re g u lation a w o rke r w h o h ad w o rke d 8 h o u rs b e f o re se e k in g f

a m ilylea v e w o u ld b e e n tit led to fa m il yleav e if th e e m p loy er n eg lected to inf o rm t he em pl oy ee pr om pt l yt hathe ors he w as i nel i gi bl e. A nd t hi s reg ardl es s of w hethert he e m p lo y e e h a d in c u rre d a n yd e trim e n t as a re su lt of the empl oy er ’ s s i l ence . 2 2 3 F

. 3 d at 79 6 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). Fort he r eas ons s t at ed i n D or m eye r , w e h o l d thatt he ver s i on of § 825. 110 i n eff ectatthe t i m e of Er dm an’ s di s m i s s al w as i nval i d. B yr equi r i ng one t o w or k atl eas t1, 250 hour s i n the p rev ious tw el ve mont hs , C ongr es s has defi ned thos e w ho are ent i t l ed t o FM L A l eave . T h e re m edi al el i gi bi l i t ypr ovi s i on of § 8 2 5 .1 1 0 (d ) p u rp o rte d to g iv e o th e rw ise n o n -e lig ib le empl oy ees a ca us e of a ct i on foran empl oy er ’ s fai l ur e t o r es pond t o an appl i cat i on forFM L A l eave i n contr avent i on of the s t atut e. O urconcl us i on i s cons i s t ent w i t h the r ece ntamendm ent t o § 825. 110, w hi ch re m oved the r emedi al el i gi bi l i t ypr ovi s i on i n l i ght of t he S upr eme C our t ’ s pr onouncementt hata r emedi al el i gi bi l i t ypr o v i s i on i n 29 C

. F. R

. § 825. 700 w as i nval i d forE r dm an al s o ar gues thatel i gi bi l i t yi s notr equi r ed for 2 FM L A r et al i at i on cl ai m s . She t akes thi s pos i t i on “bas ed upon th e e x p a n s iv e n e ss o f

th e law a g a in st re talia tio n se t f o rth in B u r li n g to n N

o rth e rn a n d

Sa n ta Fe R .R . v. W

h ite , 548 U

. S. 53 ( 2 0 0 6 ) , ” a T i t l e VI I c a s e t h a tma d e n o me n t i o n o f t h e F M L A. B u t E rd m a n c o n c e d e d th a t elig ib ilityis re q u ire d f o r b o th interfe re n c e an d retali ati o n claim s w h il e o p p o sing su m m ary j udgm ent
. She cl ai m s the ri g h tt o r ai s e the i s s ue now not beca us e of pr ocedur al i nequi t yi n t he pr ocee di ngs bel ow or beca us e of a change i n the l aw , butr atherbeca us e of “ furt her re a d in g ” w h ile p re p a rin g th is ap p e a l. W e n e e d n o t ad d re ss th is is s u e b e c a u s e E rd m a n h a s w a iv e d it. See D elaw ar e N at i on v. P e n n sy lva n ia , 4 4 6 F

. 3 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ).

. 15 s im ila r r e a s o n s . See Ragsdale v. W olver i ne W

or ld W i de, I nc. , 535 U

. S. 81, 96 (20 0 2 ) ( “[Sec t i on] 825. 700( a) eff ect s an i m perm i s s i bl e al t er at i on of t he s t atut oryfr amew or k and ca nnot b e w ith in the S ec retary ’s p o w er to issue reg u lat ion s ‘ne ce ssary t o carr y out ’ t he A ct
. ”) ; 73 Fed. R eg. 67, 394, 67, 942 ( N ov. 17, 2 0 0 8 ) (“ T h e f

in a l ru le [ ] a d o p ts th e p ro p o se d c h a n g e s in p ara g rap h s (c) an d (d), de let ing the ‘d ee m ing ’ pro v isi o n s. In l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n R agsd a le , the D e p a rtm e n t b e liev e s th a t itd o e s n o t h a v e re g u lato rya u th o rityto deem em pl oy ees el i gi bl e forFM L A l eave w ho do notm eett he 12- m ont h/ 1, 250- hourr equi r ement s , even w her e the empl oy er f a i l s t o p r o v i d e t h e r e q u i r e d e l i g i b i l i t y n o t i c e s . ” )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, E r dm an ca nnot as s er t FM L A el i gi bi l i t y under § 825. 110( d) ; s he can onl ybe deemed el i gi bl e i f the j uryfi nds thats he w or ked the requi si t e nu m ber of h ou rs . 216 2. Mus tA n E m

pl oyee Take F

M LA Leave To Prove A R e ta l i a t i o n Cla i m? Nat i o n wi d e a r g u e s th a t i f Er d ma n i s e l i g i b l e f o rFM LA lea v e , sh e c a n n o t re c o v e r o n a re talia tio n th e o ryb e c a u se sh e d id notactual l yt ake l eave . W e begi n bynot i ng that i t w oul d be pat ent l yabs ur d i f an e mpl o y e r who wi s h e d t o p u n i s h a n e mpl o y e e f o rt a k i n g FM LA leav e c o u ld av o id li ab il itysim p lyb yfiri n g the e m p loy ee b ef o re t he l eave begi ns . B u t the ques t i on i s notw hetheran empl oy er m ayes cape l i abi li ty alt ogether ; t he ques t i on i s w hethers uch a c t i o n c o n s t i tu t e s i n t er fe r e n c e wi t h t h e e mpl o y e e ’ s FM LA r i ght s , r et al i at i on agai ns tthe empl oy ee, orboth. T h re e p ro v isio n s c o ll e c tiv e lyf o rm th e b a sis o f

liab ili ty underFM L A

. T w o s ubs ect i ons of 29 U

. S. C

. § 2615( a) , ent i t l ed “I nt er fer ence w i t h [FM L A ] r i ght s , ” s t at e: (1 ) E x e rc ise o f

rig h ts Itsh all b e u n law fu l fo r an yem p loy er to interf ere w i t h, r es t r ai n, ordenythe ex er ci s e of orthe a ttem p t to e x e rc ise , a n y rig h t p ro v id e d u n d e r th is su b ch ap ter. ( 2) D i s cr i m i nat i on I ts hal l be unl aw ful forany empl oy ert o di s char ge ori n anyo ther m annerdi s cr i m i nat e aga i ns tany i ndi vi dual foroppos i ng anyp r act i ce made u n la w f u l b yth is s u b c h a p te r.17 I n addi t i on, 29 C

. F. R

. § 825. 220( c) pr ohi bit s em p l oy er s fr om “d isc r i m i nat i ng agai ns templ oy ees orpr os pect i ve empl oy ees w ho have us ed

F M L A leav e.” (em p h asis ad d ed ). Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r tn o t e d th a t “ F M LA i n t e r f e r e n c e c l a i ms ar e der i ved fr om 29 U

. S. C

. § 2615( a) ( 1) , ” and that“[t ] o s ucce ed on an i nt er fer ence cl ai m , a pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e thathe or s h e w a s e n title d to a n d d e n ie d s o m e b e n e f it u n d e r t h e F M L A .” Er dma n v . Na t i o n wi d e I n s . Co ., 5 1 0 F

. S u p p . 2 d 3 6 3 , 3 7 0 n .4 ( M

. D

. Pa. 2007)

. R et al i at i on cl ai m s , the D i s t ri ct C o ur ts t at ed, “ar i s e under 29 U

. S. C

. § 2615( a) ( 2)

. ” I d. at 3 7 0 n . 5

. “T o asse rt a r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m, a p l a i n t i f f mus t d e mon s t r a t e t h a t : ( 1 ) he or s he i s pr ot ect ed u n d er t he FM L A , ( 2) he ors he s uffe r ed an adver s e empl oym entact i on, and ( 3) the adve r s e ac t i on w as c a u s a l l yr e l a t e d t o t h e p l a i n t i f f ’ s e x e r ci s e o f

h i s o rh e rFM LA r i ght s . ” I

d. ( ci t i ng C onos hent i v. P ub. Serv

. E lec. & G as C o. , 3 6 4 F

. 3 d 1 3 5 , 1 4 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 )). U n d er the D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s st at em ent of t he l aw , E rdm an’s ret al i at i on cl ai m i s vali d b ecause comm enci ng l eave i s nota pr er equi s i t e. N evert hel es s , N at i on w i de as tut el yobs erves t hatt he el em en ts st at ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi ffe rs l i ght l yfr om our pr onouncementi n C o n o sh e n ti

. In that case, w e sai d t hat t he fir st r equi r ement of a r et al i at i on cl ai m i s t hat“[a n empl oy ee] t ook an FM L A l eave , ” C o n o sh e n ti , 364 F. 3d at146, nott hats he “be p rotec t ed undert he FM L A , ” E r dm an , 5 1 0 F. Su p p . 2 d a t3 70 n .4

. W e n o ted th a t “ [ t]h e c irc u its h a v e tak e n d iv e rg e n t p a th s in a n a ly z in g c laim s th a t an e m p lo y e e h a s b e e n d isc h a rg e d in retali ati o n fo r havi ng taken a n F M L A lea v e ,” w ith so m e c irc u its fin d ing that su ch claim s arise u n d er § 2 6 1 5 (a)(2) a n d o thers h o l d i n g t h a t§ § 2 6 15 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 2 6 1 5 ( a ) ( 2 ) , a n d 2 9 C. F

. R. § 8 2 5 .2 2 0 (c ) a ll g iv e ri s e to re ta lia tio n c la im s . C o n o sh e n ti , 364 F .3 d a t 1 4 7 n .9 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). W e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e N in thSoon after C o n o sh e n tiw a s d e c id e d , the F irst C irc u it 3 agreed t hatFM L A r et al i at i on cl ai m s m us tar i s e under § 8 2 5 .2 2 0 (c ). C ol bur n v. P arkerH anni fi n /Ni chol

s P or t l and D i vis i on , 429 F. 3d 325, 331 ( 1s tC i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng C o n o sh e n ti ). T he Fi r s tC i r cui t h as not ed thatr et al i at i on and 4 i nter ference t heo ri e s m i gh tov erl ap in som e ci rcum st ances. C olburn , 429 F. 3d at331 ( “[C]ourt s h av e di s agr eed a bout w h e th e r ‘in ter f

e re n c e ’ re f

e rs to a c a teg o ryo f

c laim s s e p a r a te a n d d istin c t f

ro m th o se in v o lv in g re talia tio n , o r w h e th e r it descri bes a group of un l aw ful acti on s, of w hich r et al i at i on i s a par t
. T he t erm ‘ i nt er fer ence ’ m ay , dependi ng on t he fa ct s , cover bot h ret al i at i on cl ai m s and non- r et al i at i on cl ai m s . T he di s t i nct i on w oul d m at t er i f t he s t andar ds of pr oof us ed turned on w hi ch s t atut or ys ect i on w er e pl ed, r atherthan on t h e natur e of t h e f a c ts a n d th e th e o ry o f th e c a s e .” ) ( c itin g , in tera lia , C o n o sh e n ti ).

18 C i r cui tappr opr i at el y “pr edi cat ed l i abi l i t y i n s uch s i tuat i ons on § 8 2 5 .2 2 0 (c ),” in s te a d o f § § 2 6 1 5 (a )( 1 ) o r ( a )( 2 ). I d. 3
N a tio n w id e a rg u e s th a t b e c a u se th e re g u latio n p ro tec ts “empl oy ee s w h o have us ed FM L A l eave , ” § 825. 220( c) , and beca us e C o n o sh e n tihel d that“t o be s ucce s s ful on thi s cl ai m , [an empl oy ee] m us ts how [] t hathe t ook an FM L A l eave , ” 364 F. 3d at14 6, an em ploy ee can no t e st abli sh a ret al i at i on cl ai m un l ess s he ac tual l ycom m ence d l eave . A l t hough C o n o sh en ti ’s l anguage s uppor t s N at i onw i de’ s ar gum ent , i ti s notcl ear w h e th e r f

irin g a n e m p lo y e e f

o r re q u e stin g F M L A lea v e sh o u ld be clas si fi ed as i nter ference w i t h the em ploy ee’s F M L A ri gh t s, r et al i at i on agai ns tt he empl oy ee f orexer ci s i ng tho se r i ght s , or bot h. S ig n if

ic a n tly, C o n o sh e n tidi d n o t i nvol ve an e m pl oy ee, 4 li k e E rdm an , w h o req u ested F M L A leav e b u t w as f ir ed b ef o re t he l eave w as s chedul ed t o begi n.A s for her r et al i at i on cl ai m , E r dm an ar gues t hatt he l aw 5 of the cas e doctr i ne pr ohi bi t s N at i onw i de fr om di s put i ng the p ro tec ted a c tiv itye lem e n t o f h e r F M L A c la im b e c a u se it i s i d e n t i c a l t o t h e p r o t e c t e d a c t i v i t ye l e me n to f h e rP HRA c l a i m, w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tal l ow ed t o pr ocee d undera r et al i at i on th e o ry. Er dm an , 5 1 0 F. Supp. 2d at374- 75. W e expr es s no opi ni on on t hi s ar gum ents o t he D i s t r i ctC our tm aycons i derthe 19 N at ionw i de has ci t ed onl yone ca s e t o s uppor ti t s br oad rea d ing of C o n o sh e n ti

. S e e R e id-Fa lco n e v . L u ze rn e C o u n ty C m ty. C o ll. , N o. 3: C V

- 02- 1818, 2005 U

. S. D i s t
. L E X I S 12713 (M

. D

. P a. Jun

. 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 ). B u t con tr aryto N ati o n w ide’s in te rp re ta tio n , R ei d- Fal cone does not s t and for t he pr opos i t i on t hatan empl oy ee mustac tuallycomm ence l eave t o s t at e a r e t a l i a t i o n c l a i m. R a th e r, R ei d- Fal cone hel d t hatan empl oy ee f i r e d a f t e rr e q u e s t i n g ma t er ni t yl e a v e — a s o p p o s e d t o FM LA l eave — coul d nots t at e an F M L A cl ai m bas ed on r et al i at i on b e c a u s e s h e h a d “ f

a il[ e d ] t o in v o k e th e p ro te c tio n s o f F M L A .” I d. a t * 2 6

. Th e f

a c t t h a t h e r l e a v e h a d n o t c o mme nced w as ir re l e v a n t to th e C o u rt ’s d e c is io n . In d e e d , R ei d- Fal cone i nd i cat es that the cri t i cal i ssue i s invo ca ti on of F M L A ri gh t s, w hi ch contr adi ct s N at i onw i de’ s r eadi ng of C o n o sh e n ti

. Si m pl yput , t hi s C o u rt has neverhel d thatan empl oy ee fi r ed af t err eques t i ng FM L A l eave butbefor e the l eave begi ns cannotr ecove r for r et al i at i on, and N at i onw i de ci t es none of our p r ece dent s ot hert han C o n o sh e n tit o s u p p o r tt h i s p r o p o s i t i on. R eadi ng C o n o sh e n ti a s N a tio n w id e u rg e s w o u ld p e rv e rse ly al l ow a empl oy er to li m itan FM L A pl ai nt i ff’ s t heor i es of r ecove r ybypr eempt i vel yfi r i ng her

. A ccor di ngl y , w e i nt erpr et th e r e q u ire m e n t th a t an e m p lo y e e “ tak e ” F M L A lea v e to connot e i nvocat i on of FM L A r i ght s , notactual comm ence m ent o f lea v e . W e th e re f

o re h o ld th a t f

irin g a n e m p lo y e e f

o r a v a lid r eques tforFM L A l eave m aycon s t i tut e i nt er fer ence w i t h the empl oy ee’ s FM L A r i ght s as w el l as r et al i at i o n agai ns tthe empl oy ee. 5i s s ue upon r emand. 20 I V. F in a lly, w e c o n side r th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s su m m ary j udgm entforN at i on w ide on E r dm an’ s A D A cl ai m . E r dm an conce des t hats he ca nnotdi r ect l yi nvoke A D A pr ot ec ti on b ec au se sh e is n o t disab led. R athe r, sh e re lie s o n the A D A ’s a ss o c iatio n p ro v isio n , w h ich p ro h ib its excl udi ng orot herw i s e d eny i ng equal j obs or benef i t s t o a qual i fi ed ind ivi dual beca us e of the know n di s abi l i t yof an i ndi vi dual w i t h w hom t he qual i fi ed i ndi vi dual i s k n o w n t o have a r el at i ons hi p oras s oci at i on. 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 1 1 2 (b)(4 ). W e fi r s tno te t hatthe as s oci at i on pr ovi s i on does not obl i gat e empl oy er s t o ac com m odat e the s chedul e of a n empl oy ee w i t h a di s abl ed r el at i ve. A l t hough r efus al t o “mak[e] r eas onabl e ac comm odat i o n s” m ay co n s t i t ut e i l l egal di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns ta di s abl ed em pl oyee , 4 2 U. S

. C. § 12112( b) ( 5) , t he pl ai n l anguage of t he A D A i ndi cat es thatthe acc om m odat i on r equi r ement does notext end t o relati ves of the d is a b le d

. See 29 C

. F. R

. § 1630. 8 , A p p endi x ( “I ts houl d be not ed [] t hatan em p loy er n eed notpr ovi de the appl i cantor empl oy ee w i t hout a di s abi l i t y w i t h a re as onabl e ac comm odat i on beca us e thatdut yonl yappl i es t o qual i fi ed a p pl i cant s or e m p lo y e e s w ith d is a b iliti e s .” ). See al s o D en H ar t og v. W

as at ch Ac a d e my , 1 2 9 F .3 d 1 0 7 6 , 1 0 8 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) (“ [ T ]h e p lain l a n g u a g e o f

[ § § 1 2 1 1 2 ( b ) ( 5 ) ( A ) a n d ( B ) ] — th e o n l ytwo pr ovi s i ons r equi r i ng ‘ r eas onabl e ac comm odat i on’ i n T i t l e I of t he A D A — s ugges t s t hatonl yj ob appl i cant s orempl oy ees , but n o t th e ir r e la tiv e s o r a ss o c iate s, n e e d b e re a so n a b ly a c c o m m o d a ted .”); La r i merv . I BM , 3 7 0 F

. 3 d 6 9 8 , 7 0 0 (7th C ir

.O f cour s e, N at i onw i de m ay be l i abl e under FM L A for 6 f ir in g E rd m a n b e c a u s e o f h e r r e q u e s t f

o r t im e o f

f

. 21 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [ T ]h e rig h t to a n a c c o m m o d a tio n , b e in g lim ited to d isa b led e m p lo y e e s, d o e s n o t e x ten d to a n o n d isa b led a ss o c iate of a di s abl ed per s on. ”) ( ci t i ng D en H ar t og ). T he ques t i on i s t her efor e w hetherE r dm an has adduce d s uffi ci entevi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d i nferthat N ati o n w ide term inated h er b e c a u se o f h er da u g h ter A m b e r’s di s abi l i t y . U ndert he as s oci at i on pr ovi s i on, th ere i s a mat er i al d ist inction b e tw ee n firi n g an em p loy ee b ec au se o f a relati v e’s di s abil i t yand fi r i ng an empl oy ee be caus e of the nee d t o t ake ti m e off t o car e for t he r el at i ve. T he st atute cl earl y refer s to a d v e rse e m p lo ym e n t ac tio n s m o tiv a ted b y“ th e k n o w n d isa b ili ty of an i ndi vi dual ” w i t h w hom an empl oy ee ass oci at es , as oppos ed t o act i ons occa s i oned bythe as s oci at i on. T her efor e, E rdm an m u st sho w that N ati o n w ide w as m o ti v ated b yA m b er’s di s abi l i t yr athert han byE r dm an’ s s t at ed i nt ent i on t o m i s s w or k; i n ot herw or ds , t hats he w oul d nothave be en fi r ed i f s he had r eques t ed t i m e off for a di ffe r entr eas on. See D en H ar t og , 129 6 F. 3d at1085 ( r equi r i ng as s oci at i on pr ovi s i on pl ai nt i ffs t o s how t hatan “a dver s e empl oy m en t a ct i on occurr ed under c irc u m sta n c e s ra isin g a re a so n a b le in f e re n c e th a t th e d isa b ili ty of the r el at i ve oras s oci at e w as a d et erm i ni ng fac t ori n t he e m p lo y e r ’ s d e c isio n ” ); i d. at1083 ( r ecogni zi ng thatdi s m i s s al forabs ence ort ar di nes s i s not act i onabl e “e ven i f the r eas on for t he abs ence ort ar di nes s i s t o car e for[a di s abl ed r el at i ve] ”) (qu o ti n g H

. R

. R ep . N o . 1 0 1 -48 5 , p t. 2 , at 6 1 -6 2 (19 9 0 ), r epr i nt ed i n 1 9 9 0 U

. S

. C

. C

. A

. N

. 3 0 3 , 3 4 4 ). O t hercour t s hav e sur m i s ed thatan empl oy ee w oul d be prot ect ed by t he associ at i on provis i on i f she w ere fi red becau se h er empl oy erfea r ed thats he m ightm iss w o rk to ca re f o r a di s abl ed r el at i ve even t hough s he had not t aken orreques t ed tim e o f f

. See O l i ver as - Si

f r e v. P uer t o R i co D ep’ tof Heal th, 21422 F. 3 d 2 3 , 2 6 ( 1 s tCi r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ [ Th e a s s o c i a t i o n p r o v i s i on p rohi bi t s t erm i nat i on] bas ed on ‘ unfounded s t er eotypes and a ss u m p tio n s’ a risin g f

ro m th e e m p lo ye e ’ s re latio n sh ip s w ith par t i cul ardi s abl ed per s ons . ”) ( quot i ng B arker v. I nt ’lP a p er C o. , 9 9 3 F

. S u p p . 1 0 , 1 5 (D . M e . 1 9 9 8 )); Tyndal lv. N at ’ lE duc. Cent ers , 3 1 F. 3d 209, 214 ( 4th C i r . 1994) ( not i ng t hat t erm i n a t i o n “ b a s e d on anyas s um pt i on r egar di ng futur e abs ence s r el ated t o [a r el at i ve’ s ] car e” gi ves r i s e t o l i abi l i t y , butt hat t erm i nati on “res ult [i ng ] fr om [an e m ploy ee’s ] rec o rd of p ast abs ence s and [he r] c leari ndi cat i on thats he nee ded addi t i onal tim e o f f ” d o e s n o t). W e a g re e w ith th is v iew , w h ich c o m p o rts w i t h t he l anguage of the s t atut e, beca us e a de ci s i on m ot i vat ed by unfounded s t er eotypes or as s um pt i ons about t he need t o car e for a d is a b le d p e rs o n m a yb e f a ir ly c o n s tru e d a s “ b e c a u s e o f th e . . . d isab il ity ” i tsel f. § 1 2 1 1 2 (b)(4 ). See 29 C

. F. R

. § 1630. 8, A ppendi x ( not i ng t hatt he as s oci at i on pr ovi s i on pr ohi bi t s an e m p lo y e r f

ro m , in tera lia , r e f

u s i n g t o h i r e a j o b a p p l i c ant beca us e of t he em pl oy er ’ s unfounded bel i ef “thatt he appl i cant w oul d have t o m i s s w or k or fr equent l y l eave w or k ear l yi n or der to ca re f o r [a d isab led] sp o u se” ). I n t hi s cas e, t he r ecor d i s devoi d of evi dence i n d icat i ng t hatN at i onw i de’ s decisi on t o fi r e Erdman w as m ot i vat ed by A m b er’s d isab il ity . Ind ee d , N ati o n w ide w as aw are o f A m b er’s dis a bi l i t y fo r many y e a r s be fo r e Er dman w a s fi r e d. The m ost E r d m an ca n hope t o s how i s t hats he w as fi r ed forr eques t i ng t i m e off t o car e forA m ber( t he bas i s for her FM L A cl ai m ) , not beca us e of

unfounded s t er eotypes oras s um pt i ons on N at i on w i de’s partabo ut car e requi red bydis abled persons. E rd m a n a rg u e s th a t S tra te v. Mi dw es t B ankce ntr e, Inc. , 398 F. 3d 1011 ( 8t h C i r . 2005) s uppor t s hercl ai m , buther r e l ia n c e o n th a t d e c is io n is m is p la c e d

. S tra te h e l d th a tan e x e m p lar ye m p lo y e e w h o w a s f ire d w h ile o n m a ter n itylea v e to car e forherdi s abl ed new bor n coul d s t at e an A D A cl ai m on anW e not e thata pl ai nt i ff maypr evai l undert he 7 a ss o c iatio n p ro v isio n in o th e r c irc u m sta n c e s n o t a t issu e in th is cas e. Forexampl e, t he Seventh C i r cui tr equi r es an as s oci at i on pr ovi s i on pl ai nt i ff t o s how “thathi s cas e fa l l s i n one of the thr ee c a teg o rie s in w h ich a n e m p lo y e r h a s a m o tiv e to d isc rim in a te a g a in st a n o n d isa b led e m p lo y e e w h o is m e re lya ss o c iate d w ith a di s abl ed per s on. ” Lari m er , 3 7 0 F .3 d a t 7 0 2

. Lari m er des cr i bed thes e ca t egor i es as : ( 1) t erm i nat i on based on a d i s a b l e d r e l a t i v e ’ s p e r c e i v e d h e a l t h c a r e c o s t s t o th e c o m p a n y; ( 2) t erm i nat i on bas ed on fe arof an e m pl oy ee c ontr act i ng or s pr eadi ng a re l at i ve’ s di s eas e; and ( 3) t erm i nat i on beca us e an empl oy ee i s s om ew hatdi s t r act ed bya r el at ive’s di s abi l i t y , y et n o t so d istra c ted th a t h e re q u ir e s a c c o m m o d a tio n s to s a tis f a c to r i l y p e r f

o rm th e f u n c tio n s o f

h is jo b

. I

d. a t 7 0 0

. See 23 a s s o c i a t i o n t h e o r y . Er d ma n ’ s c a s e d i f f e r s f r o m S tra te i n cruci al resp ec ts. In th e f

ir st place , S tr ate’s em p loy e r w a s o v erh ea rd i m pl y i ng t hat her new born’ s di s abi l i t y w as a fac t or j u sti fy i ng te rm in a tio n . Id

. a t 1 0 1 4 . S e c o n d , S tra te r el ied heavi l yon t he “c lose tem p o ral c o n n ec ti o n ” b etw ee n the e m p loy er’s d isco v ery o f th e c h ild ’s d is a b ility a n d S tr a te ’s te rm in a tio n , i d. at1019, w h ere as N ati o n w ide w as aw are o f A m b er’s d isab il ityfo r y ea rs befor e Erdman’ s t erm i nat i on. T hi r d, and most s i gni fi cant l y , t he empl oy er ’ s m o ti vat i ons i n Str at e amount ed t o unfounded assum pti on s ab ou t t he need t o care for a dis abled chil d b ecause a l t h o u g h t h e e mpl o y e r k n e w a b o u t t h e d i s a b i l i t y , i t had no r eas on t o su sp ec t t hatSt r at e w oul d need a ddi t i onal t i m e off b e y o n d h e r o rig in a llys c h e d u led m a ter n itylea v e . T h e sa m e is nott rue her e, w her e E r dm an w as fi r ed onl yaft erannounci ng her in te n tio n to ta k e le a v e to c a re f o r A m b e r . A c c o rd in g ly, S tra te d o e s n o t su p p o rt E rd m a n ’s a rg u m e n t. B eca us e no r eas onabl e j ury coul d concl ude thatE r dm an w a s f ir e d “ b e c a u s e o f

[ A m b e r’ s ] k n o w n d is a b ility,” § 12112( b) ( 4) , w e w i l l aff i rm the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s u mma r yj u d g me n to n Er d ma n ’ s ADA c l a i m. 7als o 29 C

. F. R

. § 1630. 8, A ppendi x ( not i ng thatthe as s oci at i on pr ovisi o n pr ohi bi t s an empl oy erfr om fi r i ng an empl oy ee b ec au se of a fe ar th at h is v o lun teer w o rk w ith A ID S s u ff ere rs m ay caus e t he empl oy ee t o contr act t he di s eas e hi m s el f, orfr om r educi ng an empl oy ee’ s heal t h benef i t s b ec au s e of a di s abl ed re la tiv e ). E rd m a n a s s e rt s n o n e o f th e s e th e o ri e s . 24 V

. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t o n E rd m a n ’s A D A c laim , b u t w ill vaca t e the s um m aryj udgm enton E r dm an’ s FM L A cl ai m , and re m a n d th e c a se f

o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is opi ni on.