# 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- 37 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Bo nn ie Hase nwi nk el
,

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

ff - App el la nt ,

v.

Mo sa ic ; Kel ly T ho m

ps on ; J an et Fis he r; C aro l M au ,

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

an ts - App el le es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 23 , 20 15 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 29 , 20 15

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Bo nn ie Has en win ke l su ed he r fo rm er em pl oyer, Mo sa ic
, fo r al le ge dl y in te rfer in g wit h he r rig ht s un de r th e Fam il y an d Med ic al Le av e Act (“ FMLA”)
, 29 U.S.C. § 2 60 1 et se q. , an d for all eg ed ly te rm in at in g her em pl oym en t i n v io la ti on ofpu bl ic po li cy

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Mo sa ic
, an d 1
we affi rm

.

I.

In rev ie win g t he di st ric t co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t, we de sc rib e th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to Has en win ke l. Mo sa ic op erat es gr ou p- li vi ng an d

nu rs in g- care faci li ti es fo r ad ul ts wit h in te ll ect ua l di sa bi li ti es

. In th e su m m er of 20 07
, Mo sa ic hi red Has en win ke l as a reg is te red nu rs e. Has en win ke l’s res po ns i b il it ie s in cl ud ed m ak in g ro un ds at si x gr ou p ho m es , pr ov id in g pa ti en t care , ta ki ng cl ie nt s to do ct or s’ app oi nt m en ts , and su pe rv is in g t he in -h om e n ur si ng st aff.

W hi le em pl oyed by Mo sa ic
, Has en win ke l ob ta in ed le av e un de r th e FMLA on

se ve n oc cas io ns

. Has en win ke l to ok co nt in uo us pe rio ds of FMLA le av e to ha ve kn ee

su rg ery (Ma rch 4 to 17
, 20 10 ), tre at de pr es si on (Ap ril 7 to 24
, 20 11 ), un de rg o a he art
pr oc ed ur e (J ul y 27 to Aug u s t 7
, 20 11
, an d Octo be r 4 to Octo be r 16
, 20 11 ), an d

reco ve r fro m ne ck s u r g e ry (No ve m be r 23
, 20 11
, to Apr il 2, 20 12 ). Sh e al so to ok in te rm it te nt FMLA le av e to at te nd ph y si cal th erap y (J un e 18
, 20 09
, to Ju ne 17
, 20 10 )

an d t o c are f

or he r ai li ng fat he r (J an ua ry 10 , 20 11 , to Jan ua ry

9, 2 01 2)

.

Mo sa ic ne ve r reject ed an ex pl ic it req ue st fo r le av e, bu t Has en win ke l co nt en ds th at on on e oc cas io n th e co m pa ny fo rced he r to ret ur n fro m FMLA l e a v e a n d th en
pu ni sh ed he r fo r ta ki ng it

. Has e n w i n k e l w a s ab se nt on May 3 an d 4, 20 11
, du e to ch ro ni c de pr es si o n

. H a s e n win ke l be li ev es th es e ab se nc es were pa rt of he r FMLA le a v e , b u t t h e r e is no reco rd of he r as ki ng pe rm is si on to be ab se nt

. At th e ti m e, Has en win ke l was ap pr ov ed on ly fo r in te rm it te nt FMLA le av e to care fo r he r fat he r; he r de pr es si on -rel at ed lea ve ha d e nd ed two week s ea rli er.

The Ho no rab le Ro na ld E. Lon gs ta ff, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-2

-Su pe rv is or Kell y Tho m ps on cal le d Has en win ke l on May 5 an d or de red he r to
ret ur n to wor k th e ne xt da y

. Has en win ke l di d no t te ll Tho mp s o n th at sh e ne ed ed FMLA leav e an d di d no t as k Tho m ps on fo r ti m e of

f. W he n sh e ret ur ne d on May 6,
Mo sa ic ga ve Has en win ke l an in fo rm al ev al ua tio n tha t not ed he r unap pr ov ed ab se nc es

an d a la ck of fo ll ow th ro ug h wit h pa ti en ts

. On he r a n n u a l pe rfo rm an ce rev ie w th e fo ll owi ng m on th
, Has en win ke l rece iv ed a “ ne ed s im pr ov em en t” rat in g in on e of fo rty

ev al ua ti ve cat eg or ie s. Has en win ke l be li ev es th at th e co m pa ny g av e h e r a n e g a ti ve in fo rm al ev al ua ti on an d on e un sa ti sf act or y rat in g in ret al ia ti on fo r he r us in g FMLA le av e an d wi th a de si gn to m ak e h er q ui t.

Has en win ke l al so rece iv ed th ree fo rm al co rrec ti ve act io ns th at sh e cl ai m s were
ret al ia ti on fo r ta ki ng FMLA le av e. Th e m os t se rio us co rrec ti ve act io n was an
ap pr oxi m at el y one -m ont

h sus pe nsi on fo r unsa

tis fa ct or y w or k pe rfo rm an ce. Res id en ts
at a gr ou p ho m e rep or te d m ol d in th e ba se m en t. Rat he r th an rep or t th e m ol d to Mo sa ic
, Has en win ke l us ed a Pet ri di sh to co ll ect an d cu lt ur e th e m ol d he rs el f. Afte r le arn in g of th e ex pe riment, Mo sa ic pl aced Has en win ke l o n u np ai d ad m in is tra ti ve le av e effe ct iv e Aug us t 31
, 20 11

. An in ve st ig at io n co nc lu de d th at Has en win ke l fai le d

to fo ll ow Mo sa ic ’s po li cy on rep or ti ng he al th co nc ern s. Mo sa ic ul ti m at el y ga ve Has en win ke l a writ te n warn in g an d rei ns ta te d he r wit h ba ck pa y on Sep te m

be r 27
, 20 11

.

Has en win ke l re cei ve d o th er wri tt en warn in gs on Ju ly 2 6, 2 01 1, fo r fai li ng to
tra in st aff m em

be rs an d on Octo be r 17
, 20 11
, fo r p r a c t i c i n g on an ex pi red nu rs in g li cen se an d m ak in g nu m ero us do cu m en ta ti on erro rs

. Has en win ke l ad m it s th at th es e

ev en ts oc cu rred bu t di sa gr ees th at he r pu ni sh m en ts wer e a p p r o p r i at e or fai r. In ad di ti on to th es e fo rm al em pl oym en t act io ns , Has en win ke l rep or te d be in g tre at ed di ffe r e n tl y th an ot he r nu rs es an d feel in g “ ga ng [ed ] up on ” du e to he r FMLA le av e. Has en win ke l sa y s sh e was he ld to a di ffer en t st an da rd th an th e ot he r nu rs es at Mo sa ic

an d rece iv ed un fai r sc ru ti ny fro m su pe rv is or s who la ck ed m ed ic al tra in in g. Sh e al so

ex pe rie nc ed pe rs on al sl ig ht s su ch as no t be in g in vi te d to lu nc h wit h ot he r em pl oyees.

-3

-Has en win ke l ha d ne ck su rg ery in Nov em be r 20 11 an d ne ve r ret ur ne d to wor k

at Mo sa ic

. Has en win ke l ex ha us te d he r FMLA be ne fit s whe n sh e was un ab le to ret ur n
to wor k on Ja nu ary 8, 20 12

. Fo rtu it ou sl y , ho wev er, Mos ai c ch an ge d it s m et ho d for cal cu la ti ng FMLA accr ua l a t t h e be gi nn in g of 20 12
, an d Has en win ke l th us was
gr an te d an ad di ti on al twel ve week s of FMLA le av e to whi ch sh e wou ld no t ha ve be en

en ti tl ed un de r th e fo rm er m et ho d. Has en win ke l co ul d no t reco ve r du rin g th is se co nd

pe rio d of FMLA le av e, an d sh e ag ai n ex ha us te d he r FMLA be ne fit s on Apr il 2, 20 12

. Mo sa ic ga ve Has en win ke l an ad di ti on al ni ne ty-day m ed ic al le av e of ab se nc e, bu t sh e

was st il l un ab le to wor k aft er ni ne ty d ay s. Co ns eq ue nt ly, Mo sa ic te rm in at ed he r

em pl oym en t o n J ul y

2, 2 01 2.

Has en w i n k el su ed Mo sa ic un de r th e FMLA an d Io wa co m m on la w. Has en win ke l cl ai m s th at Mo sa ic in te rfer ed wit h he r F M LA r i g h ts by de nyin g he r be ne fit s to whi ch sh e was en ti tl ed an d di sc riminat i n g a ga in st he r fo r ta ki ng FMLA le av e. Sh e fu rth er clai m s th at he r di sc ha rg e was in vi ol at io n of t he pu bl ic po li cy of th e FMLA. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Mo sa ic
, co nc lu di ng th at Has en win ke l rece iv ed al l of th e be ne fit s to whi ch sh e was en ti tl ed un de r th e FMLA, th at th e al le ge d di sc riminat io n di d no t res ul t in an ad ve rs e em pl oyme n t act io n, an d th at th e FMLA “ pr eem

pt [ed ]” her s ta te -la w cla im

.

W e rev ie w th e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t d e n o v o , v ie win g th e fact s an d dr awin g al l in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t f a v o r a b le to Has en win ke l, th e no n- m ov in g
pa rty. RSA 1 Lt d. P’sh ip v. Par amo un t So ft wa re Ass oc s., In c. , 79 3 F.3 d 90 3, 90 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Su m

m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te if “ 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. 56 (a). Thi s co ur t m ay affi rm on an y ba si s su pp or te d by th e reco rd

. Sp ir ta s Co

. v. Na ut il us Ins . Co. , 71 5 F .3d 66 7, 6 70 -7 1 (8 th Cir . 20 13 ).

-4

-II.

The FMLA en ti tl es el ig ib le em pl oyees to twel ve work week s o f un pa id lea ve du rin g an y twel ve -m on th pe rio d un de r cert ai n en um erat ed ci rcu m st an ces

. 29 U.S.C. § 26 12 (a)( 1)

. The se ci rcu m st an ces in cl ud e th e bi rth or ad op ti on of a ch il d, th e il ln es s of an i mm e d i a t e fam il y m em be r, or th e de ve lo pm en t of “ 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 rfo rm th e fu nc ti on s of [h er] po si ti on .” Id

. W it h

cert ai n ex cep ti on s no t rel ev an t he re, an em pl oyee is en ti tl ed to be res to red to th e sa m e

or eq ui va le nt po si ti on a s s he he ld be fo re th e pe rio d of le av e wit h eq ui va le nt te rm s

an d co nd it io ns of em

pl oym en t. Id

. § 26 14 (a). If an em pl oyee ex ha us ts FMLA le av e

an d is “ un ab le to pe rfo rm an es se nt ia l fu nc ti on of th e po si ti on be cau se of a ph y si cal

or m en ta l co nd it io n,” th e em pl oyer m ay te r mi n a t e he r em pl oym en t. 29 C.F.R. § 8 25 .21 6( c).

T he A ct al so es ta bl is he s pr oh ib it ed act s an d pe rm it s em pl oyees to en for ce the se
pr oh ib it io ns th ro ug h a pr iv at e rig h t of act io n. 29 U.S.C. §§ 26 15
, 26 17 (a). As rel ev an t h ere, an em

pl oyer m ay no t “ in te rfer e wit h, rest rai n, or d en y th e ex erci se of

or th e at te m

pt to ex erci se , an y rig h t p r o v id ed un de r” th e FMLA. Id

. § 26 15 (a)( 1)

. In te rfer en ce in cl ud es “ no t on ly refu si ng to au th or iz e FMLA le av e, bu t di sc ou rag in g

an em pl oyee fro m us in g su ch le av e.” 2 9 C

. F

. R

. § 82 5.2 20 (b ). Any em pl oyer who vi ol at es th e FMLA can be he ld li a b l e f o r “ act ua l m on et ary lo ss es su st ai ne d by th e

em pl oyee,” pl us in te res t, co st s, an d at to rn ey s’ fees

. 29 U.S.C

. § 26 17 (a). Oth er types of da m ag es , su ch as da m ag es fo r e m ot io na l di st res s, are no t av ai la bl e. Rod ge rs v. Ci ty of Des Mo in es , 43 5 F .3d 90 4, 9 08 -0 9 (8 th Cir . 20 06 ).

A.

Has en win ke l fir st cl ai m s th at Mo si a c in te rfer ed wit h he r FMLA rig ht s by de nyin g he r req ue st fo r le av e on May 5, 20 11

. To su ccee d, Has en win ke l m us t sh ow th at sh e was el ig ib le fo r FMLA le av e, 29 U.S.C. §§ 26 11 (2 ), 26 12 (a)( 1)
, th at Mo sa ic

-5

-was on no ti ce of he r ne ed fo r FMLA le av e, 29 C.F.R. § 82 5.3 02 et se q. , an d th at th e

co m pa ny d en ie d he r be ne fit s t o wh ic h s he was e nt it le d t o u nd er th e FMLA. Qui nn

v. St

. Lo ui s Ct

y. , 65 3 F.3 d 74 5, 75 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Onl y th e la tt er two req ui rem en ts are d is pu te d i n t hi s ca se

.

Ass um in g fo r th e sa ke of an al y si s th at Mo sa ic was on no ti ce of Has en win ke l’s

ne ed fo r FMLA le av e, su mm a r y ju dg m en t was pr op er be cau se Has en win ke l

ex ha us te d h e r F M LA be ne fit s. Has en win ke l do es no t di sp ut e th at Mo sa ic al lo wed he r to tak e twe lv e week s of FMLA le av e. In f act , Hase nwi nk el rece iv ed m or e th an th ree ti m es th e am ou nt of le av e req ui red by la w: sh e rece iv e d a fu ll twel ve week s th at ex pi red on Ja nu ary 8, 20 12
, an ad di ti on al twel ve week s un de r Mo sa ic ’s rev is ed
FMLA accr ua l po li cy , an d an ot he r ni ne ty da y s (o r, ne arl y th irt een week s) of m ed ic al le av e pr io r to he r te rm in at io n. Has en win ke l ex ha us te d he r FMLA be ne fit s an d th us ha s n ot be en de ni ed an y

en ti tl em en t u nd er t he st at ut e. Id

.

B.

Has en win ke l ne xt cl ai m s th at Mo sa ic in te rfer ed wit h he r FMLA rig ht s by di sc riminat in g ag ai ns t he r be cau se sh e to ok FMLA le av e. “ The FMLA pr oh ib it s an

em pl oyer fro m ta k in g ad ve rs e act io n ag ai ns t an em pl oyee be cau se th at em

pl oyee

ex erci se s th e rig ht s to whi ch sh e is en ti tl ed un de r th e FMLA.” Mal lo y v. U.S. Pos ta l
Se r v

. , 7 5 6 F

. 3d 10 88
, 10 90 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). W he re, as he re, th ere is no di rect

ev id en ce of di sc riminat or y in te nt , an em pl oyee m ay pr ov e in te nt in di rect ly un de r th e bu rd en -s hi fti ng fram ewo rk of McDo nn el l Dou gl as Co rp

. v. Gre en , 41 1 U .S. 79 2 (1 9 7 3 )

. S e e Br ow n v. Ci ty of Ja cks on vi ll e , 71 1 F.3 d 88 3, 89 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). To

es ta bl is h a pr ima fa ci e cas e of di sc riminat io n, th e pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow “ (1 ) th at [s ]he

en ga g e d i n act iv it y pr ot ect ed un de r th e Act, (2 ) th at [s ]he su ffer ed a m at eri al ly ad v e r s e e m

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 io n a n d th e ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n.” Pul cz in sk i v. Tr in it y St ru ct ur al To wer

s, In c. , 69 1 F.3 d 9 9 6
, 1 0 07 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). As wit h ret al ia ti on

-6

-cl ai m s un de r Tit le VII, se e Qui nn , 65 3 F.3 d at 7 5 4 n

. 9, an em pl oym en t act io n is
“m a t e r i al ly ad ve rs e” if it “ well m ig ht ha ve di ss ua de d a reas on ab le wor ke r fro m

m ak in g or su pp or ti ng ” a cl ai m un de r th e FMLA. Bur li ng to n N. & Sa nt a Fe Ry. Co

. v. W hi te , 54 8 U.S. 5 3, 68 (2 00 6) (in te rn al qu ot at io n om it te d)

. A c au sa l co nn ect io n

ex is ts whe n th e pl ai nt iff s h o w s t ha t a di sc riminat or y m ot iv e “ pl ay ed a pa rt in th e ad ve rs e em

pl oym en t act io n.” Hit e v. Verme er Mfg

. Co

. , 44 6 F.3 d 85 8, 86 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

Has en win ke l ba se s he r cl ai m on th ree pu rp or te dl y ad v e r s e a c t s: (1 ) he r
te rm in at io n fro m Mo sa ic
, (2 ) a on e-m on th su sp en si on fo r fai lu re to rep or t m ol d in a
gr ou p ho m e, an d (3 ) g e ne ral ly un pl eas an t tre at m en t by he r su pe rv is or s. Fo r th e

r e a s on s se t fo rth be lo w, we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at Has en win ke l fai le d t o

m ak e a s ub m is si bl e cas e o f FMLA d is cri m in at io n o n a ny of th es e al le ga ti on s.

1.

Has en win ke l al le ge s th at Mo sa ic di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t he r by te rm in at in g he r

em pl oym en t. “ [T]erm in at io n is un eq ui vo cal ly an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n.”
W ag es v. St ua rt Mgmt

. Co rp

. , 79 8 F.3 d 67 5, 67 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Bu t te rm in at io n is

act io na bl e un de r FMLA on ly if th e em pl oyee was di sc ha rg ed be cau se of he r FMLA le av e. Est ra da v. Cyp re ss Se mico nd uc to r (Mi nn .) In c. , 61 6 F .3d 86 6, 87 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). An em

pl oyer m ay la wfu ll y te rm in at e an em pl oyee if, aft er t h e e mp l o yee

ex ha us ts FMLA le av e, sh e is “ un ab le to pe rfo rm an es se nt ia l fu nc ti on of th e po si ti on be cau se of a ph y si cal or m en ta l co nd it io n.” 29 C.F.R. § 82 5.2 16 (c). Has en win ke l ad m it s t ha t s he was p hysic al ly una bl e to wor k when he r FMLA b en efi ts ex pi red on Ja nu ary 8, 20 12
, an d th en ag ai n on Apr il 2, 20 12

. Her te rm in at io n w a s t h e refo re la wfu l u nd er t he FMLA.

Has en win ke l com

pl ai ns th at th e real reas on th at sh e d id no t re tu rn to work is th at Mo sa ic crea te d a ho st il e wor k en vi ro nm en t. Bu t reg ard le ss of whe th er th at is

-7

-tru e, th e fac t re m ai ns th at Hase nwi nk el was p hysic al ly inc ap ab le of p erfo rm in g h er

job

. Has en win ke l ad m it te d du rin g he r ni ne ty-day m ed ic al le av e of ab se nc e in sp rin g 20 12 th at sh e was ph y si cal ly una bl e to work an d t ha t s he was n ot su re i f sh e wou ld

ev er be ab le to res um e he r nu rs in g care er. In he r br ie f res is ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t, Has en win ke l co nc ed ed th at sh e ha s no t so ug ht an ot he r job si nc e le av in g Mo sa ic an d

rece iv ed an ei gh ty-perc en t di sa bi li ty rat in g fro m th e So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on

. The re is th us in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t a fin di ng th at Has en win ke l was ab le to
ret ur n to wor k ev en if Mo sa ic ha d m ai nt ai ne d wha t sh e vi ewed as a welc om in g

en vi ro nm en t.

2.

Has en win ke l ne xt ci te s he r on e-m on th su sp en si on fo r fai lu re to rep or t m ol d in

a gr ou p h om e as ev id en ce o f Mo sa ic ’s in te rfer en ce wi th he r FMLA rig ht s. Mo sa ic in it ia ll y su sp en de d Has en win ke l wit ho u t pa y bu t la te r pr ov id ed ba ck pa y fo r th e

m on th

. A su sp en si on wit h ba ck pa y can be an ad ve rs e em pl oym en t act io n. W e sa id in McCl ur e v. Ca re er Sy st ems Devel op men t Co rp

. , 44 7 F.3 d 11 33 (8 th C i r

. 20 06 ), th at su sp en di ng an em

pl oyee wit ho ut p a y w a s an ad ve rs e act io n in a Tit le VII

ret al ia ti on cas e, ev e n w h e re th e em pl oyee was la te r rei ns ta te d wit h ba ck pa y

. Id . a t 11 37

. The Su pr em e Co ur t in Bur li ng to n No rt he rn si m il arl y o b s e r v e d th at “ an in de fin it e su sp en si on wit ho ut pa y co ul d well act as a de te rren t, ev en if th e su sp en de d

em pl oyee ev en tu al ly recei ve d b ack pa y .” 54 8 U.S. at 72 -7 3.

Eve n whe re a su sp en si on wit h ba ck pa y co ul d d e t e r an em pl oyee fro m

ex erci si ng rig ht s un de r th e FMLA, ho wev er, a pl ai nt iff pr oc eed in g un de r th e FMLA

m us t sh ow act ua l m on et ary lo ss to reco ve r. The pl ai nt iff s in McCl ur e an d Bur li ng to n No rt he rn al le ge d di sc riminat i o n un de r Tit le VII, whi ch al lo ws pl ai nt iff s to reco ve r

no n -p ecu ni ary da m ag es , se e 42 U.S.C. § 19 81 a(b ); Bur li ng to n N.
, 54 8 U.S. at 72
,
w he reas th e FMLA li m it s da m ag es to act ua l m on et ary lo ss

. 29 U.S.C. § 2 61 7( a)(1 )(A); Nev

. Dep ’t of Huma n Res. v. Hib bs , 53 8 U.S. 7 21 , 73 9- 40 (20 03 ).

-8

-The FMLA “ pr ov id es no rel ie f un le ss t h e em pl oyee ha s be en pr ejud ic ed by th e vi ol at io n.” Rag

sd al e v. W ol ver in e W

or ld W id e, In c. , 53 5 U.S. 8 1, 8 9 (2 00 2)

.

Has en win ke l ha s no t pr es en te d ev id en ce of an y ta ng ib le lo ss act ua ll y in cu rred

an d d ire ct ly cau se d by h er su sp en si on . Th e cl os es t Has en win ke l co m es to all eg in g

m on et ary lo ss is no ti ng in he r ap pe ll at e br ie f th at “ m is si ng a pa y ch eck

. . . can of te n
sp el l di sa st er fo r em

pl oyees.” Yet Has en win ke l ha s ack no wled ge d th at sh e was m ad e who le whe n Mo sa ic fu rn is he d ba ck pa y , an d sh e pr es en te d no ev id en ce th at m is si ng

a pa yc h e c k cau se d he r to su ffer a “ di sa st er” or an y ot he r ta ng ib le ha rm

. Bec au se Has en win ke l ha s no t id en ti fie d an y m o n e t a r y l o s s in cu rred as a res ul t of he r

su sp en si on , he r arg um en t t h at sh e is en ti tl ed to rel ie f un de r th e FMLA fai ls as a

m at te r of law.

3.

Fi na ll y , Has en win ke l cl ai m s Mo sa ic di sc riminat ed ag ai ns t he r by tre at in g he r

un fai rly an d by os tra ci zi ng he r fro m he r co wor k ers

. The al le ge d m is tre at m en t by
Mo sa ic su pe rv is or s in cl ud ed ho l d i n g h er to a hi gh er st an da rd th an ot he r nu rs es ,
su bjec ti ng he r to a ne ga ti ve pe rfo rm an ce ev a l u a ti on , sc ru ti ni zi ng he r wor k m or e cl os el y , an d dec li ni ng to in vi te he r to lu nc h. Non e of th es e sl ig ht s ri se s t o th e le ve l of a m at eri al ly ad ve rs e em pl oym en t acti on

. The FMLA doe s no t im po se “ a ge ne ral ci vi li ty co de fo r th e Am eri can wor kp la ce,” Bur li ng to n N.
, 54 8 U

. S

. at 68 (in te rn al

qu ot at io n om it te d)
, an d th is se t of co m pl ai nt s by Has en win ke l— wit ho ut ev id en ce of

ta ng ib le in

jury or ha rm

—i nv ol ve s th e so rt of “ pe tt y sl ig ht s or m in or an no y an ces th at of t e n t ak e pl ace at wor k an d th at al l em pl oyees ex pe rie nc e.” Id

. ; se e AuBu ch on v. Geit hn er , 7 4 3 F.3 d 63 8, 64 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). The y are no t act io ns th at wil l de te r

reas on ab le em

pl oyees fro m ex erci si ng th ei r FMLA rig ht s a nd are th eref or e no t
act io na bl e u nd er t he st at ut e.

-9

-III.

Has en win ke l al so br in gs a st at e-l aw cl ai m for wron gf

ul di sc ha rg e. Io wa la w

reco gn iz es an ex cep ti on to th e ru le of at -wil l em pl oym en t fo r di sc ha rg e in vi ol at io n of pu bl ic po li cy

. Fit

zg er al d v. Sa ls bu ry Ch em., In c. , 61 3 N.W .2d 27 5, 28 0- 82 (Io wa 20 00 ). To p rev ai l, a p la in ti ff m us t s ho w:
(1 ) th e ex is te nc e of a cl earl y de fin ed an d well -rec og ni zed pu bl ic po li cy th at p r o te ct s th e em

pl oyee’s act iv it y ; (2 ) th is pu bl ic po li cy wou ld be

un de rm in ed by th e em

pl oyee’s di sc ha rg e fro m em pl oym e n t; (3 ) th e
em pl oyee en ga ge d in th e pr ot ect ed act iv it y , an d th is co nd uc t was th e
reas on th e em

pl oyer di sc ha rg ed th e em

pl oyee; an d (4 ) th e em

pl oyer ha d

no ov erri di ng bu si ne ss jus ti fic at io n fo r th e d is ch arg e.

Berr y v. Li be rt y Hol di ng s, In c. , 80 3 N.W .2d 10 6, 10 9- 10 (Io wa 20 11 ). Thi s co m m on

la w cl ai m pr ot ect s em

pl oyees who wou ld ot he rwis e be wit ho ut a rem ed y

. Har vey v. Ca re Ini ti at iv es , Inc

. , 63 4 N.W.2d 6 81 , 68 3 (I owa 20 01 ).

Has en win ke l’s clai m fai ls as a m at te r of Io wa la w. The Io wa Su pr em e Co ur t ha s no t de ci de d whe th er a fed eral st at ut e, as op po se d to Io wa la w, can su pp ly a pu bl ic

po li cy to su pp or t th e to rt of wro ng fu l di sc ha rg e. Fit zg er al d
, 61 3 N.W .2d at 28 5 n.4

. Bu t in so far as th e FMLA es ta bl is he s a p u b l i c po li cy th at m ig ht be pr ot ect ed by t he
Io wa co m m on la w, se e Smu ck v. Na t’l Mgmt

. Co rp

. , 54 0 N.W .2d 66 9, 67 2- 73 (Io wa Ct . App . 19 95 ), th e fed eral st at ut e al so pr ov id es em pl oyees wi th a rem ed y . W he re,

as he re, th e em

pl oyee pr es en ts in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to sh ow th at sh e was di sc ha rg ed in vi ol at i o n o f th e FMLA, he r te rm in at io n do es no t un de rm in e a cl earl y de fin ed

pu bl ic po li cy , an d Io wa la w do es no t pr ov id e a se pa rat e cau se of act io n ba se d on th e
to rt of wro ng fu l d is ch arg e. W e th eref or e n eed no t ad dr es s wh et he r th e FMLA al so
pr eem pt s an y st at e-l aw cl ai m ba se d on ret al ia ti on fo r ex erci si ng rig ht s un d e r th e FMLA. The di st ric t co ur t th us pr op erl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t fo r M os ai c on Has en win ke l’s s ta te -la w cla im

.

-1 0-* * *

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-1 1-