Opinion ID: 2805323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: FMLA Interference and Retaliation Claims

Text: The FMLA provides that “an eligible employee shall be entitled to a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period . . . [b]ecause of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.” 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D). An employee has the right to be restored to her original position or an equivalent position following FMLA leave. 29 U.S.C. § 2614(a)(1). The FMLA creates two types of claims to preserve and enforce the rights it creates: “interference claims, in which an employee asserts that [her] employer denied or otherwise interfered with [her] substantive rights under the Act, and retaliation claims, in which an employee asserts that [her] employer discriminated against [her] because [s]he engaged in activity protected by the Act.” Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Birmingham, 239 F.3d 1199, 1206 (11th Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). An FMLA interference claim requires the plaintiff to show that she was entitled to a benefit denied by her employer. Id at 1206–07. However, “the right 18 Case: 14-14480 Date Filed: 06/02/2015 Page: 19 of 21 to commence FMLA leave is not absolute, and [] an employee can be dismissed, preventing her from exercising her right to commence FMLA leave, without thereby violating the FMLA, if the employee would have been dismissed regardless of any request for FMLA leave.” Krutzig v. Pulte Home Corp., 602 F.3d 1231, 1236 (11th Cir. 2010). Similarly, “an employer can deny reinstatement if it can demonstrate that it would have discharged the employee had [s]he not been on FMLA leave.” Martin v. Brevard Cnty. Pub. Sch., 543 F.3d 1261, 1267 (11th Cir. 2008) (quotations omitted). To establish an FMLA retaliation claim, an employee must demonstrate that her employer intentionally discriminated against her for exercising a right guaranteed under the FMLA. Id. “Unlike an interference claim, an employee bringing a retaliation claim faces the increased burden of showing that [her] employer’s actions were motivated by an impermissible retaliatory or discriminatory animus.” Id. at 1267–68 (quotations omitted). Absent direct evidence of retaliatory intent, we apply the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas. Id. at 1268. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the FMLA, an employee must show that: (1) she engaged in activity protected by the FMLA; (2) she suffered an adverse employment decision; and (3) the decision was causally related to the protected activity. Id. 19 Case: 14-14480 Date Filed: 06/02/2015 Page: 20 of 21 Close temporal proximity between an employee’s protected conduct and the adverse employment action is generally sufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether there is a causal connection. Hurlbert v. St. Mary’s Health Care Sys., Inc., 439 F.3d 1286, 1298 (11th Cir. 2006). If the employee successfully demonstrates a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate reason for the adverse action. Id. at 1297. Once an employer does so, the employee then must show that the employer’s proffered reason was pretextual. Id. Plaintiff argues that the district court did not properly analyze her FMLA interference claim. As to her FMLA retaliation claim, she contends that Defendant retaliated against her because she continued to take FMLA leave, noting that the decision to terminate her was made just after she informed Defendant that she was only released to work half-days because of her medical condition. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s FMLA claims. Assuming that Plaintiff established a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation based on the close temporal proximity between her requested leave and the final termination decision, the burden of production shifted to Defendant. It presented a legitimate reason for her termination—her inability and repeated failure to perform her job duties—that Plaintiff failed to show was pretextual. 20 Case: 14-14480 Date Filed: 06/02/2015 Page: 21 of 21 Finally, the district court did not err in determining that Plaintiff’s FMLA interference claim was essentially the same as her FMLA retaliation claim. Although Plaintiff may have been trying to argue that by firing her, Defendant “denied” her FMLA leave to which she was entitled (working only half-days), her interference claim is largely a clone of her FMLA retaliation claim. In any event, Plaintiff also failed to establish an interference claim because it is undisputed that Defendant would have terminated her regardless of any FMLA leave she took or requested. See Krutzig, 602 F.3d at 1236; Martin, 543 F.3d at 1267. Human Resources Partner Dan Howard did not make the final termination decision until after Plaintiff returned from leave, but the decision was based on the independent analysis of Plaintiff’s latest work product and Howard’s conclusion, after meeting with Plaintiff, that her performance issues were not resolvable.