# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 18 52

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Delb ert E. Huds on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ty so n F res h M eat s, In c.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa , W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 10 , 20 15
Fil ed : M ay

22 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE, BEAM, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Delb ert Eug en e Hud so n su ed Ty so n Fr es h Me at s, In c. fo r wro ng fu l te rm in at io n

in vi ol at io n of th e Fam il y Med ic al Leav e Act. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d s u mm a r y jud gm en t to Ty so n. Hud so n ap pe al s. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91

, th is co ur t re ve rs es an d re m an ds

.I.

On Decem

be r 28

, 20 11

, Hud so n di d no t to co m e to wor k as a Ty so n su pe rv is or

du e to il ln es s. Hud so n as ke d hi s gi rlf rie nd (a Ty so n em

pl oyee) to rep or t he was si ck

an d wou ld be ou t a few da y s. Sh e to ld Hud so n’s su pe rv is or , Ham di ja Beg an ov ic

, th at

Hud so n wo ul d b e la te or a bs en t o n Dec em be r 28

.

Acco rd in g to Hud so n, he te xt ed Beg an ov ic be fo re th e st art of hi s sh ift th at he

was ha vi ng he al th is su es , wou ld be ou t a few da y s, an d ne ed ed to se e a do ct or

. Ty so n’s at te ndance po li cy , whi ch Hud so n ha d si gn ed

, st at es : “ All m an ag em en t Team

Mem be rs are ex pe cted to pe rs on al ly cal l th ei r di rect su pe rv is or to rep or t an un pl an ne d

ab se nc e or to rep or t th at th ey wil l be la te .” Hud so n, ho wev er, cl ai m s he of te n te xt ed

wit h Beg a no vi c, an d at le as t on ce be fo re (acc ep ta bl y ) no ti fie d Beg an ov ic of an

ab se nc e b y

tex t.

Hud so n m is se d se ve ral da y s of wor k du e to il ln es s, i nc lu di ng Decem be r 28

, 29

, an d 30

. Bes i d e s th e m es sa ge fro m hi s gi rlf rie nd an d th e te xt to Beg an ov ic

, Hud so n di d no t no ti fy Ty so n of hi s ab se nc es

. He was no t sc he du le d to wor k on

Decem be r 31 or Ja nu ary 1- 2. On Ja nu ary 2, he sa w a do ct or an d was di ag no se d wit h,

am on g ot he r is su es , ba ck pa in an d de pr es si on

. The do ct or pr es cri be d m ed ic at io n an d

crea te d a fol lo w-u p p la n.

On Ja nu ary 3, Hud so n wen t to Ty so n’ s h e a l th se rv ic es wit h a do ct or ’s no te

ex cu si ng hi m fro m t h e pa st week of wor k, as well as th e co m in g week : “ Pat ie nt

Delb ert Hud so n ha s be en un de r m y care 12 /2 8/ 11 to 1/ 7/ 12 fo r il ln es s an d was un ab le

to wor k.” Bas ed on th e no te

, Hud so n r e q u e s t e d le av e fro m Decem be r 28 -3 1 an d

Ja nu ary 1- 7. He in te nd ed to ap pl y fo r FMLA le av e. He si gn ed a “ Leav e of Abs en ce Ap pl ic at io n,” whi ch ha s bo xe s fo r req ue st in g “ FMLA” or “ Med ic al (No n FMLA)”

le av e. The no n- FMLA bo x is ch eck ed on Hud so n’s ap pl ic at io n. He de ni es ch eck in g

-2

-it an d cl ai m s so m eo ne el se ch eck ed it aft er he si gn ed th e ap pl ic at io n. On Ja nu ary 4,

Ty so n g ran te d Hu ds on no n- FMLA l eav e.

Hud so n ret ur ne d to Ty so n o n J a nu ary 9. He was in st ru ct ed no t to go to th e 1

flo or or pe rfo rm hi s du t i e s

. Tha t da y , Hum an Res ou rces m an ag er Teri W ray

in ve st ig at ed Hud so n’s abs en ces . She in te rp ret ed hi s fi rs t d oc to r’s no te as ex cu si ng

h i m fro m wor k fro m Decem be r 28 to Ja nu ary 6 (ret ur ni ng Ja nu ary 7 )

. S h e

de te rm in ed th at Hud so n’s gi rlf rie nd rep or te d he wou ld be la te on Decem be r 28 th

, bu t

th at he di d no t no ti fy Ty so n of ab se nc es on Decem be r 27

, 29

, 30

, an d 31

, or Ja nu ary

7. W ray rep or te d, “ Hud so n s ta te d t ha t h e d id no t ca ll hi s s up erv is or be cau se of th e

st res s an d pa in he w a s e n d u rin g.” Sh e fo un d Hud so n “ un de rs ta nd s th at he sh ou ld

ha ve no ti fie d hi s su pe rv is or ” bu t “ di dn ’t co m e to wor k be cau se he was feed [s ic ] up

an d fel t th at he was n’t ge tt in g th e su pp or t he ne ed ed fro m Beg an ov ic .” Sh e in di cat ed

th at Hud so n “ ha d sp eci fic in st ru ct io ns to cal l-i n p r i o r t o sh ift to hi s im m ed ia te

su pe rv is or if he was go in g to be la te or m is s wor k” an d ha d a “ si m il ar si tu at io n”

walk in g of

f th e job wit ho u t no ti ce in 20 11

. W ray reco m m en de d Hud so n’s

te rm in at io n. Ty so n ap pr ov ed th e te rm in at io n th at da y

. It pr oc es se d th e te rm in at io n

on Ja nu ary 10

, in fo rm in g Hud so n th at he “ fai le d to no ti fy th e co m pa ny he was go in g

to be ab se nt fro m

work on 12 -2 8, 1 2- 29 , 12 -3 0, an d 1 2- 31 .”

Hud so n su ed

, cl ai m in g Ty so n in te rfer ed wit h hi s FMLA rig ht s an d

di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t hi m fo r ta ki ng F M LA le av e. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d

su m m ary jud gm en t to Ty so n. It de ni ed Hud so n’s Ru le 59 (e) m ot io n to al te r or am en d
jud gm en t, an d R

ul e 6 0( b) m ot io n fo r rel ie f fro m jud gm en t.

Hud so n cal le d hi s do ct or o n J a n u a r y 9 as ki ng fo r an ex te ns io n of hi s wor k 1

rel eas e. He rece iv ed a se co nd do ct or ’s n ot e, da te d Ja nu ary 1 0

, e x t e nd in g hi s le av e th ro ug h J an ua ry

9. It is un cl ear when Hud so n gav e th is no te to Ty so n. Th e p art ie s do no t di sc us s it

. Howev er, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at

, ba se d on th e ne w no te

, Ty so n ex te nd ed Hud so n’s le av e th ro ug h J a n u ary 9 an d di d no t rei ns ta te hi m un ti l

Ja nu ary 11

.

-3

-II.

The FMLA en ti tl es an em pl oyee to twel ve week s o f un pa id lea ve du rin g a ny

twel ve -m on th pe rio d if th e em pl oyee ha s a “ se rio us he al th co nd it io n th at m ak es th e

em pl oyee un ab le to pe rf

o r m t h e f u n ct io ns of th e po si ti on of su ch em pl oyee.” 29

U.S.C. § 26 12 (a )(1 )(D), (c)

. It is un la wfu l fo r “ an y em pl oyer to i n t e r f

e r e wit h,

r e s t r a i n , o r de ny th e ex erci se of or th e at te m pt to ex erci se ” FMLA rig ht s. Id

. §

26 15 (a )(1 )

. Th e r e a r e two types of cl ai m s un de r § 26 15 (a)( 1)

. An “ en ti tl em en t” 2

cl ai m res ul ts whe n “ an em pl oyee cl ai m s th e de ni al of a be ne fit to whi ch he is en ti tl ed

un de r th e st at ut e.” Pulc zi ns ki v. Tri ni ty St ru ct ur al Tow er

s, In c. , 69 1 F.3 d 99 6, 10 05
(8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (n ot in g vi ol at io n whe n “ em pl oyer refu se s to au th or iz e le av e un de r th e

FMLA or ta ke s ot he r act io n to av oi d res po ns ib il it ie s un de r th e Act” ). A

“ di sc riminat io n” cl ai m oc cu rs whe n “ an em pl oyer ta ke s ad ve rs e a c t i on ag ai ns t an

em pl oyee be cau se th e em

pl oyee ex e r c i s e s r i gh ts to whi ch he is en ti tl ed un de r th e

FMLA.” Id

. at 10 06

.

Hud so n br ou gh t en ti tl em en t an d di sc riminat io n cl ai ms

. Th e di st ric t co ur t reject ed bo th

. Thi s co ur t rev ie ws de no vo a gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t. Tor

ge rs on

v. Ci ty of Ro ches te r , 64 3 F.3 d 10 31

, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (en ba nc ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is pr op er whe n “ th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e

m ov an t is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w.” Fed. R. Ci v. P. 5 6( a)

. A c ou rt

“ m us t vi ew th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e op po si ng pa rty” an d dr aw

al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th at pa rty. Tol an v. C ot to n , 13 4 S. Ct

. 18 61

, 18 66 , 18 68 (20 14 ) (p er cu ria m ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

An em pl oyer al so m ay no t “d is ch arg e or in an y ot he r m an ne r di sc riminat e 2

ag ai ns t an y in di vi du al fo r op po si ng an y pr act ic e m ad e un la wfu l by th is su bc ha pt er.”

29 U.S.C. § 2 6 1 5 ( a ) ( 2 )

. Thi s type of “ ret al ia ti on ” cl ai m is no t at is su e he re. Se e Pulc zi ns ki v. Tri ni ty St

ru ct ur al Tow er

s, In c. , 69 1 F.3 d 99 6, 10 05 -0 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). (rec og ni zi ng th ree d is ti nc t cl ai m s u nd er FM LA).

-4

-A.

H u d s on cl ai m s th at Ty so n de ni ed hi s ex erci se of FMLA rig ht s in two w a ys :

m is cl as si fy in g hi s le av e as no n- FMLA, an d fai li ng to res to re hi m to hi s po si ti on up on

ret ur n fro m le av e. Se e 29 U.S.C. §§ 26 12
, 26 14 (n ot in g em pl oyee is en ti tl ed to ta ke

un pa id le av e fo r sp eci fie d reas on s, and to be “ res to red ” to th e sa m e or “ eq ui va le nt ”

po si ti on fo ll owi ng le av e). Fo r an en ti tl em en t cl ai m , th e em pl oyee ne ed no t sh ow an y

di sc riminat or y in te nt by th e em pl oyer. Pulc zi ns ki

, 69 1 F.3 d at 1 0 0 5. Se e al so

St al li ng s v. Hus sm an n Co rp

. , 44 7 F.3 d 10 41

, 10 50 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ [A]n em pl oyee

m us t sh ow on ly th at he or sh e was en ti tl ed to th e be ne fit de ni ed .” (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s om it te d) ). The em pl oyee m us t be pr ejud ic ed by th e em pl oyer’s FMLA

vi ol at io n. Pulcz in sk i , 69 1 F .3d at 1 00 6.

Hud so n con te nd s th at hi s le av e was im pr op erl y cl as si fie d as no n- FMLA. He

do es no t di sp ut e th at Ty so n gr an te d le av e fo r th e req ue st ed ti m e. He “ do es no t al le ge

th at he was pr ejud ic ed by t he m is cl as si fic at io n of th is ab se nc e. He w a s n o t d en ie d

co m pe ns at io n or be ne fit s, an d he ha s no t sp eci fie d an y so rt of eq ui ta bl e rel ie f th at is

warra nt ed

. W it ho ut m or e, an al le ga ti on th at a da y of le av e was m is cl as si fie d do es no t

en ti tl e [Hu ds on ] to rel ie f.” Se e id

. at 1 00 7 (i nt ern al cit at io ns om it te d)

.

Hud so n al so co nt en ds th at Ty so n te rm in at ed hi m wit ho ut “ res to r[i ng ]” hi m to

th e sa m e or si m il ar po si ti on aft er hi s le av e. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d Hud s o n was

res to red whe n he ret ur ne d to Ty so n on Ja nu ary 9

. Howev er, Hud so n was no t

pe rm it te d to wor k— an d reco m m en de d fo r te rm in at io n— th at sa m e da y

. Se e 29

C.F.R. § 82 5.2 15 (n ot i ng “ eq ui va le nt po si ti on ” req ui res “ th e sa m e or su bs ta nt ia ll y

si m il ar du ti es an d res po ns ib il it ie s” an d “ th e sa m e sh ift or th e sa m e or an eq ui va le nt

wor k sc he du le ”). Ty so n c l a i ms i t “ret ur ne d Hud so n to hi s no rm al job du ti es fo r a

pe rs on Hum an Res ou rces was in ve st ig at in g,” bu t fai ls to ci te au th or it y or th e reco rd

. The pa rti es ag ree th at Hud so n was te rm in at ed Ja nu ary 10

. Bu t th e co ur t fo un d, “ On

Ja nu ary 11

, 20 12

, Ty so n rei ns ta te d Hud so n fro m hi s l e a v e of ab se nc e, whi ch ha d

-5

-be en ex te nd ed t o J a n u a ry 9, 20 12

, pu rs ua nt to [th e do ct or ’s] se co nd wor k rel eas e,

effe ct iv e Ja nu ary 10 , 20 12 .”

The re is a di sp ut e of m at eri al fact whe th er Hud s o n w a s r e st or ed fro m le av e

be fo re bei ng te rm in at ed

. The di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t to 3

Ty so n o n t he en ti tl em en t cl ai m

.

B.

Hud so n clai m s th at Ty so n d is cri m in at ed ag ai ns t h im by firi ng hi m

for ta ki ng

FMLA le av e. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Hud so n de m on st rat ed a pr im a faci e cas e

of di sc riminat io n bu t th at Ty so n ha d a le gi ti m at e, no nd is cri m in at or y reas on fo r hi s

te rm in at io n. Hu ds on co un te rs th at Ty so n’s re as on is pre te xt ua l.

A di sc riminat io n cl ai m “ ari se s whe n an em pl oyer ta ke s ad ve rs e act io n ag ai ns t

an em pl oyee be cau se th e em

pl oyee ex erci se s rig ht s to whi ch he is en ti tl ed un de r th e

FMLA.” Pulc zi ns ki

, 69 1 F.3 d at 10 06

. “ An e mp l o ye e m ak in g th is type of cl ai m

m us t pr ov e th at th e em

pl oyer was m ot iv at ed by th e em pl oyee’s ex erci se of rig ht s

un de r th e FMLA.” Id

. Usi ng FMLA leav e “ do es no t gi ve an em pl oyee an y gr eat er

pr ot ect io n ag ai ns t te rm in at io n fo r reas on s un rel at ed to th e FMLA th an was av ai la bl e

be fo re.” Ma ll

oy v. U.S. Pos ta l Ser v. , 75 6 F.3 d 10 88

, 10 90 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 14 ). Thu s,

ta ki ng act io n ag ai ns t an em pl oyee fo r vi ol at i n g co m

pa ny at te nd an ce po li ci es whi le

on FMLA le av e is no t d is cri m in at or y

. Cha pp el l v. Bi lc o Co

. , 6 75 F.3d 11 10 , 11 15
(8 th Cir . 20 12 ).

If, af te r hi s le av e was ov er an d af te r he was r e s t o r e d t o hi s po si ti on , Ty so n 3

to ok ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n ag ai ns t Hud so n be cau se he ex erci se d FMLA rig ht s, th at is a cl ai m fo r di sc riminat io n. Se e St a l l i n g s , 44 7 F.3 d at 10 51 (fi nd in g co ur t

pr op erl y an al y zed cl ai m as on e fo r di sc riminat io n whe n “ on ly aft er St al li ng s ret ur ne d
fro m FMLA le av e di d [h is em pl oyer] qu es ti on ” whe t h e r t h e l eav e was frau du le nt ).

-6

-Hud so n of fers no di rect ev id en ce th at Ty so n te rm in at ed hi m fo r ex erci si ng hi s

F M LA r ig ht s. The refo re, hi s cl ai m is an al y zed un de r th e McDo nn el l Dou gl as

fram ewo rk

. Pulc zi ns ki

, 69 1 F.3 d at 10 07

. “ To es ta bl is h a pr im e faci e cas e of FMLA

di sc riminat io n, an em

pl oyee m us t sh ow: (1 ) th at he en ga ge d in ac t i vi ty pr ot ect ed

un de r th e Act, (2 ) th at he su ffer ed a m at eri al ly ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n, an d (3 )

th at a cau sa l co nn ect io n ex is te d be twee n th e em pl oyee’s act i o n a n d t he ad ve rs e

em pl oym en t act io n.” Id

. (em ph as is om it te d)

. If th e em pl oyee es ta bl is h e s a p rima

fa c i e c as e, “ th e bu rd en sh ift s to th e [em pl oyer] to art ic ul at e a le gi ti m at e,

no nd is cri m in at or y reas on f o r it s ch al le ng ed act io ns .” St al li ng s , 44 7 F.3 d at 10 51

. The em pl oyee m ay th en de m on st rat e th at th e pr of fere d reas on is pr et ex tu al

, sh owi ng

th at “ th e em

pl oyer’s pr of

fere d ex pl an at io n is un wor th y of cred en ce” or “ pe rs ua di ng

th e co ur t t ha t a pro hi bi te d reas on m or e li ke ly m ot iv at ed th e em pl oyer.” Id

. at 1 05 2
(b rack et s an d in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Se e al so Cha pp el l

, 67 5 F.3 d at 11 17
(n ot in g ev id en ce of pr et ex t is vi ewed in li gh t of em pl oyer’s jus ti fic at io n, so m or e th an

a pr im a faci e cas e is req ui red ). If an em pl oyer ba se s it s de ci si on on an ho ne st ly-hel d

be li ef un rel at ed to th e FMLA, it is no nd is cri m in at or y ev en if th at be li ef is m is ta ke n.

Phil li ps v. Ma th ews , 54 7 F .3d 90 5, 9 11 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8)

.

Ty so n co nt en ds Hud so n di d no t en ga ge in pr ot ect ed a c ti vi ty be cau se he

pr ov id ed in ad eq ua te no ti ce of hi s ne ed fo r le av e. Se e Ha ge r v. Ar k. Dep ’t of

Hea lt h

, 73 5 F.3 d 10 09 , 10 15 -1 6 (8 th Cir . 20 13 ) (n ot in g e m pl oyee “ m

us t g iv e th e em

pl oyer

no ti ce of th e ne ed fo r le av e an d in di cat e whe n [h e] an ti ci pa te s ret ur ni ng to wor k” ).

The di st ric t co ur t as su m ed ad eq ua te no ti ce. Dis pu te s of fact ab ou t no ti ce rem ai n,

i nc lu di ng whe th er Hud so n ch eck ed th e no n- FMLA bo x on hi s ap pl ic at io n a n d

whe th er he se nt hi s su pe rv is or a te xt

. The se m ay or m ay no t be m at eri al

, de pe nd in g

on th e co nt en t of th e no ti ce. Cf

. Cl in ks ca le v. St

. Ther es e of New Ho

pe , 70 1 F.3 d

82 5, 8 27 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) (“ W he th er an em pl oyee ga ve su ffi ci en t in fo rm at io n to pu t

hi s or he r e mplo y er on no ti ce th at an ab se nc e m ay be co ve red by th e FMLA is a

qu es ti on of fact fo r th e jury.”). Giv en th e fact ua l is su es , th is co ur t de cl in es to affi rm

-7

-on “ al te rn at iv e gr ou nd s th at ha ve no t y et be en ad d r e s s e d by t he di st ric t co ur t,” an d

“ be li ev e[s ] it m or e p r u d e n t to al lo w th e di st ric t co ur t to ad dr es s th os e is su es in th e

fir st in st an ce” on rem an d. Se e In re Ba yco l Pro ds

. Lit

ig

. , 73 2 F.3 d 86 9, 87 7 n.6 (8 th

Ci r. 20 13 ).

Ass um in g Hud so n en ga ge d in pr ot ect ed act iv it y , he pr es en ts a pr im a faci e cas e

of di sc riminat io n. On th e se co nd el em en t, Ty so n co nc ed es Hud so n’s te rm in at io n was

a m at eri al ly ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n. On th e th ird

, Ty so n do es no t di sp ut e t h e

di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng : “ Giv en th e ex ceed in gl y cl os e te m po ral co nn ect io n be twee n

th e pr ot ect ed co nd uc t an d th e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n, Hud so n ha s de m on st rat ed

a cau sa l li nk be twee n th e pr ot ect ed act iv it y an d th e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n.” Se e

Hi te v. V er m eer Mfg . Co. , 44 6 F .3d 85 8, 8 66 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

Ty so n as se rts a le gi ti m at e, nond isc ri m ina tor y reaso n fo r Hud so n’s te rm in at io n:

He was a “ no cal l/ no sh ow” fo r m ul ti pl e da y s. At or al arg um en t, Ty so n cl ari fie d th at

it di d no t fir e Hud so n fo r f a i l in g to sh ow up to wor k, si nc e it gr an te d le av e

ret ro ac t i ve ly. Rat he r, it fir ed Hud so n fo r “ fai l[i ng ] to fo ll ow th e no ti ce pr oc ed ur es

. . . whi ch req ui red a ph on e cal l.” Hud so n do es no t di sp ut e th at vi ol at in g Ty so n’s

at te nd an ce po li cy wou ld be a le gi ti m at e reas on fo r te rm in at io n un rel at ed to th e

FMLA. Se e Cha

pp el l

, 67 5 F.3 d at 11 15 (n ot in g em pl oyer m ay ta ke a c t i o n whe n

em pl oyee fai ls t o f

o l l o w cal l-i n po li cy ). Howev er, Hud so n co nt en ds th at he ga ve

ti m el y an d ad eq ua te no ti ce, an d th at Ty so n’s reas on fo r te rm in at in g hi m is pr et ex tu al

.

The re is a ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact whe th er Ty so n’s ex pl an a ti on “ is

un wor th y of cred en ce.” St al li ng s , 44 7 F.3 d at 10 52

. Orig in al ly, Ty so n cl ai m ed th at

it fir ed Hud so n fo r “ fai l[i ng ] to no ti fy th e co m pa ny he was go in g to be ab se nt ”; it no w

cl ai m s th at he fai le d to no ti fy th e co m pa ny in th e co rrec t m an ne r. W hi le th is sh ift in

ex pl an at io n do es no t pr ov e pr et ex t, it i s r e l e v a n t in li gh t of ot he r ev id en ce. Cf

. Ma ll oy , 75 6 F.3 d at 10 92 (fi nd in g no in fere nc e of di sc riminat io n ne ces sa ry whe n ne w

-8

-ex pl an at io n was no t a “ su bs ta nt ia l ch an ge in th e em pl oyer’s st at ed reas on ”). Ty so n’s

ex pl an at io ns (b ot h or ig in al an d ne w) are pa rtl y in accu rat e. Se e Hi te

, 44 6 F.3 d at 86 7
(“ In ap pr op ria te ci rcu m st an ces , th e tri er of fact can reas on ab ly in fer fro m th e fal si ty

of th e ex pl an at io n th at th e em pl oyer is di ss em

bl in g to co ve r up a di sc riminat or y

pu rp os e.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) )

. O n D e cem be r 31

, Hud so n was no t

sc he du le d to wor k. He th us di d no t ne ed to no ti fy an y on e of h i s a b s e n c e. Fo r

Decem be r 28

, W ray’ s no te s st at ed th at Hud so n ha d no ti fie d th e co m pa ny (al th ou gh

no t by ph on e). Alt ho ug h Ty so n arg ue s W ray ha d an ho ne st ly-hel d be li ef th at Hud so n

m is se d wor k fo r m

ul ti pl e da y s wit ho ut no ti fy in g Ty so n, it do es no t ad dr e ss th at

W ray’ s own no te s an d Hud so n’s wor k sc he du le co nt rad ic t th is be li ef. Se e St al li ng s , 44 7 F.3 d at 10 53 (fi nd in g pr et ex t whe n em pl oyer co ul d no t reas on ab ly be li ev e

em pl oyee li ed ab ou t t ak in g F MLA le av e).

It is al so di sp ut ed whe th er Ty so n en fo rc ed it s cal l-i n po li cy

. Hud so n swo re

th at he of

te n te xt ed wit h hi s su pe rv is or , an d th at he ha d pr ev io us ly no ti fie d hi s

su pe rv is or , vi a te xt

, of an ab se nc e. Alt ho ug h th e po li cy sa y s Hud so n ne ed ed to cal l

hi s di rect su pe rv is or , Beg an ov ic te st ifi ed th at em pl oyees are “ su pp os ed to cal l in

, jus t

li ke an y bo dy el se

. The y ’re su pp os ed to ge t ah ol d of so m eb od y ” or “ no ti fy HR”— th e

po li cy di dn ’t req ui re cal li ng a “ sp eci fic pe rs on .” The tri er of fact m ay in fer th at fir in g

Hud so n fo r fai li ng to cal l hi s su pe rv is or , whe n ot he r m et ho ds of co m m un ic at io n are

acce pt ab le

, is pr et ex t. Co mpa re Hi te

, 44 6 F.3 d at 86 8 (n ot in g jury co ul d ha ve fo un d

th at em pl oyer’s reas on ha d no ba si s in fact if i t cr ed it ed th e em pl oyee’s tes ti m on y ),

wi th Cha pp el l

, 67 5 F.3 d at 11 18 (co nc lu di ng te rm in at io n fo r fai li ng to fo ll ow cal l-i n

po li cy was no t d i sc riminat or y , whe n ot he r em pl oyees were al so di sc ip li ne d fo r

vi ol at in g th at po li cy ). Hud so n ha s pr es en te d s u f fic ie nt ev id en ce to rai se a ge nu in e

is su e of fact th at he ad eq ua te ly no ti fie d Ty so n an d was act ua ll y te rm in at ed ba se d on

h i s u s e o f FMLA le av e. Se e Tol an , 13 4 S. Ct

. at 18 66 (“ [A] jud ge ’s fu nc ti o n a t

su m m ary jud gm en t is no t to weig h th e ev id en ce an d de te rm in e th e tru th of th e m at te r

-9

-bu t to de te rm in e whe th er th ere is a ge nu in e is su e fo r tri al .” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d) ).

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t is rev ers ed an d th e cas e rem an de d f o r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt

wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-